🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep26.190032.62552@uvmark.uucp> jim@uvmark.uucp (Jim Todhunter) writes:
>  Here we are specifically
>  addressing the argument that if you disallow certain drawing rules the
>  game is infinite and hence unsolvable.

Just for the record -- you have this backwards.  If you ignore certain
rules you can force the games to be finite.  When you include the full
rules, as approved by FIDE, you have to allow for infinite games.
I also don't think that just because infinite games are allowed, chess
is unsolvable.

>    It should also be apparent the three fold repetition
>  should be treated as a drawing condition.  (Remember, we define
>  solvability in terms of best play that produces a known result.  Thus,
>  any position which repeats thrice should be treated as a draw since
>  a decisive line, if one does exist, is reachable via a shorter path.)

This is not a proof.  How do you prove that "best play" must lead to a
"known result"?  By definition?  That's very convenient.  It also isn't
very convincing.