🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <xeno.717575523@pv34ad.vincent.iastate.edu> xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes:
>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
>
The rules also describe a tournament director who can decide the outcome of
games that take too long.