🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Sep26.132508.24956@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes:

>In article <xeno.717471510@pv34ad.vincent.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>>It is not possible for both players to have better than a draw and
>>less than a win....  What one player has, the other does not.  One's
>>loss is the other's win... zero sum game.
>>
>>How do I prove this?  The rules of chess state it quite plainly...
>>If white wins, black loses.  If black loses, white wins.  A draw is
>>considered a perfect 50%/50% game for each (a half-loss, half-win situation).

>There is a loop hole:  the rules do not give a value to games that do
>not end.

I beg to differ, but they most certainly do!  This is called a 'draw'.  If
it were NOT considered a 'draw' then a king vs. king position would very
plainly fall under the category of such a loop hole.  If you then say
'well, there is not enough of a material advantage for either side to win
so therefore it is obviously a draw since all paths lead to draws, but in
another example, this might not be the case' then my response is:

You've added a synthetic rule to the game which states that lack of material
advantage is a draw. (Note that this is *not* really synthetic as the rules
of chess plainly state that such positions are draws, JUST as they state
that indefinite loops are draws...  if you take one, you MUST take the other).

If you are interested in 'rigor' then all you need do is add these two rules:

(1) ANYTIME a position has been repeated three times, the game is a draw.

and/OR (yes, OR...  either rule suffices)

(2) If 50 moves pass with no capture, the game is a draw.


You are accusing the rules of chess of having 'loop holes' whereby players
can claim a condition other than win/lose/draw...  If you wish to contort
the rules of chess to create such synthetic loop holes to support your
argument, then at least explain it as such.  If there ARE loopholes and I
am still confused on the issue, PLEASE try to create an example situation
where this question would arise.

Even if so, I think I can easily gain a consensus amoung the players here
on the net that if a game lasts forever (ie., has infinite moves whether in a
loop or not), then that game is a draw since neither side has a hope to
win unless the other side makes a mistake.  But luckily, the accepted rules
of play prohibit such situations from arising.

Now, if you are interested in a variant of chess where these rules do not
apply, then your argument is completely founded.  But then we are no longer
talking about a finite game, so the previous discussions do not apply.


---Xeno