Answers.Body: <p>TL;DR I think it’s just a coincidence. I don’t think that even now the composer would like to “retrofit” :-) the 75 move rule into the problem.</p>
  <p>I’m fortunate enough to have had discussions with Tom Volet on a number of occasions. He basically wants to force the greatest number of moves since the last zeroing of the count (capture or pawn move). He doesn’t want to be blocked by any 50 move rule or 75 move rule, because these are just unnatural constraints on the task.</p>
  <p>As far as I know, his problems do not use the 50 or 75 move rules in any way. If push came to shove he would say that his problems are valid in their own terms and as a free spirit he is not bound by the Codex.</p>
  <p>However my own position is that a properly revised version of the relevant article from the WFCC would be consistent with what he is trying to do.</p>
  <p>Tom, as far as I remember, is happy with the idea that if it is say 60 moves since the last possible pawn move or capture, that proves that for the last 10 moves no-one claimed the draw. The fact that the game passed beyond that point proved it.</p>
  <p>However the draw might have been claimed right at the end in the final diagram position. Since the game did not progress beyond that, there is no way to disprove that. But this does not affect the soundness of the problem at all.</p>
  <p>The WFCC Codex Article 17 is widely accepted to be problematic for a number of reasons. It states:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Unless expressly stipulated, the 50 moves-rule does not apply to the
  solution of chess compositions except for retro-problems.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Issues include:</p>
  <ol>
  <li><p>The FIDE rule speaks of arbiters and time-sheets and clocks and claims. None of these have meaning in the context of a chess problem.</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>As discussed above, it does not allow for the retro-probability that a player didn’t choose to claim the draw.</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>It does not clarify that checkmate also zeroes the move count. This is not stated explicitly  in the FIDE Law but is a consequence of the timing rule and of the idea that a player who checkmates would not claim a draw with that move.</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>It does not refute the claim by some problemists that castling (but oddly no other first king move or rook move) should also be considered to zero the count. This is explicitly contrary to the FIDE Law.</p>
  </li>
  </ol>
  <p>The Codex also states:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <ol start="12">
  <li>Presently the rules defined in the 1 Jan 2018 version of the FIDE Laws are valid. Relevant for compositional chess are articles 1 to 5, 9.2 and 9.3.</li>
  </ol>
  </blockquote>
  <p>This explicitly excludes 75 Move rule from consideration in problems. I think this is fine, although it’s possible a future generation of composers might seek to reverse that.</p>
  <p><a href="https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P0008399" rel="nofollow noreferrer">See database entry here.</a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-11T22:53:05.713Z
Answers.Text: But the problem clearly applied a limit of 75 moves. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain the transition of the move in the position to black. The task is orthodox: "Draw". White's move is by default.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Элси Ринген
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-11T23:11:23.003Z
Answers.Text: In general, no one prevents the author from declaring any number finite. And make a task for ANY NUMBER of moves. Moreover, there are examples. Fabel and Cheriani did the task back in 1947: "Last 111 moves are without captures or Pawn moves!" The task is not of the "Last move?" type. Many moves are free. Just 111 moves without taking and pawn movement is the minimum.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Элси Ринген
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-12T21:58:51.547Z
Answers.Text: "He doesn’t want to be blocked by any 50 move rule or 75 move rule, because these are just unnatural constraints on the task."_Did he tell you WHAT he needed it for?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Элси Ринген
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-11T22:23:16.153Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-07-12T14:00:17.330Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-07-12T14:00:17.330Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.Body: <p>Colleague Laska suggested taking a broader look at the problem. I fully agree with his opinion that there is not a single answer to any question on this topic in the Codex. And we will have to formulate the approaches ourselves.</p>
  <p>The first and fundamental question is:</p>
  <p><strong>Does the game stop automatically when 50.0 moves are reached, or can it last indefinitely and we can finish it according to the 50-move rule only in a position on the diagram?</strong></p>
  <p>The very principle of retroanalysis implies that we do not consider previously made moves for meaning and logic (otherwise we would have been in a madhouse long ago!), but only for legality. Accordingly, we cannot imagine a situation where people have been making moves one odder than the other for 50 moves and then suddenly BEGAN TO THINK about whether we should declare a draw. These will never declare anything, and they will move the chips senselessly. So here we have a dead end! And it will be up to us to decide, not these &quot;valiant&quot; players.</p>
  <p>And, as always, we have <strong>two options:</strong></p>
  <p><strong>1. The game cannot last more than 50.0 moves</strong> (positions of 50.5 moves are positions similar to DP+0.5 moves and cannot be in the diagram).</p>
  <p><strong>2. The game can last any number of moves, but the side whose turn it is now has the right to declare a draw if there were more than fifty moves.</strong></p>
  <p>I do not see any real advantages of the second approach, and I will note that Nikita Mikhailovich Plaksin, the most famous expert on this topic, has always adhered to the first approach. In my opinion, <strong>this fact alone is enough to declare the first approach correct</strong>, even without starting a debate. If anyone understands anything at all about the M50, it's a Plaksin. Here, I'm sorry, Thomas Volet (with all due respect to him) is not the figure to &quot;swing your rights&quot; (свои права качать) in this matter. Although, of course, he has every right to any position and we respect his position. Just like any other. But he cannot force it on us.</p>
  <p>Next, I will outline the advantages of the first approach (everyone can also outline the advantages of the second one).</p>
  <p><strong>1. We get rid of the confusing procedure of declaring a draw</strong> (the side performing the 50th move must do it BEFORE the MOVE, the move itself is not made and the position cannot appear on the diagram; the side whose turn will be 50.5 does it BEFORE the move). Solving such puzzles is the last thing a simple problem solver needs.</p>
  <p><strong>2. We save tasks like &quot;Last move?&quot; that use the 50-move rule.</strong> Because ONLY the first approach is possible there, with the second approach, the solution in &quot;103 single moves&quot; can easily turn into 0 (if the initial position can be repeated with any series of moves).</p>
  <p><strong>3.There are M50 tasks built according to the RG type (to keep within a given number of moves). Only the first approach does not kill the meaning in them.</strong>. It's not difficult to untie a position, but keeping within 50 moves is already a problem. :)</p>
  <p><strong>4 (the most important point, in my opinion). The second approach misleads the solver.</strong> Assuming that the number of moves can be more than 50, he finds a solution in 57, 54 or 52 moves, <strong>considers it correct and publishes it on serious resources as a solution.</strong> Here is one typical example:
  <a href="https://www.janko.at/Retros/Masterworks/Solutions.htm#6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.janko.at/Retros/Masterworks/Solutions.htm#6</a>
  Pay attention to the phrase:
  <em>So, <strong>the 52-move run has</strong> indeed happened without pawn moves or captures and white can prove the 50-move draw.</em></p>
  <p>The person was simply not warned that Plaksin N.M. simply does not have tasks in which there can be more than 50.0 moves. If he had been warned, he would have looked for an error in his decision and would have easily found it (an extra third move with the rook h1 and a strange attempt to save one move with the queen by spending two moves with the bishop).</p>
  <p>It seems to me that these 4 points are ALREADY enough (although I could write more) to unequivocally determine <strong>that only 1 approach can be correct by default (there cannot be more than 50.0 moves in a position on the diagram).</strong></p>
  <p>At the same time, if 50 moves are not enough for the authors, then who limits them? If M50 is accepted by default, then substitute any number instead of 50 and do the task for as many moves as you need. What's the problem?</p>
  <p>Moreover, there are precedents.</p>
  <pre><code>[Title &quot;Dr. K. Fabel and Dr. L. Ceriani. Am Rande des Schachbretts, 1947&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;8/p1b2p1p/8/8/8/1PPPPKPP/bpqrrPBb/kbbnrRRn w - - 0 1&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  <p>The author's question sounds like this:
  <strong>Last 111 moves are without captures or Pawn moves !</strong></p>
  <p>When applying the approach I have proposed, the question could be formulated more successfully:
  <strong>Release the Position (М111)</strong>.
  The mark shows that in the 50 Moves Rule, the value of 50 has been changed to 111. And the solution must fit into this framework.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-12T18:46:43.163Z
Answers.Text: I'll add it on my own. For this task, 75 moves were not required at all. I experimentally verified that all the ideas of this task can easily be implemented in the standard "50 moves" space. Moreover, I also had to add a preliminary ("zero") phase from myself to the 4 phases of the author. Because 50 didn't come out, only 37-40. And these 10-13 moves had to be composed somehow. That's some fun, I'll tell you.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Элси Ринген
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-12T18:30:53.613Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-07-13T12:39:23.880Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-07-13T12:39:23.880Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Элси Ринген
Body: <pre><code>[Title &quot;Draw - T. Volet. Ded. M. Caillaud &amp; N. Plaksin. 1st Prize Rex Multiplex, 1983&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;n4K2/b1pprppp/1p2p3/2p5/N1P3P1/BkP1P3/1P2PPP1/3N1BR1 w - - 0 1&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  <p>I have an interesting story connected with this task. I was given it to solve somehow, the author was named, but they didn't tell me what year the problem was. And they did not warn about the condition of 75 moves. The solution there is simple (the most difficult is a preliminary retroanalysis - it will go further along the rails). And when the sixth dozen moves began, and the end of the solution was still far away, I suspected something was wrong. But I decided to solve it to the end. And when there were exactly 75 moves in the solution, I thought about it! I went to study the Rules. And it turned out that the 75-move rule was added not so long ago. Then I thought that the task was done under the new rule.And in general, there was an assumption that the new rule would allow new ideas to be implemented that previously did not fit into the standard 50 moves.
  And then I saw her here: <a href="https://www.janko.at/Retros/Glossary/FiftyMoves.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.janko.at/Retros/Glossary/FiftyMoves.htm</a> And there's 1983. And then there was no such rule yet.
  But the task itself is strictly based on the 75-move Rule. Even the move in the position went to black. Because there are 75.5 moves in white's position. Illegally! Therefore, the move is in black's position. White has just made the last 75th move. And the draw was automatically fixed. Even with black's move, it makes no sense for White to play for a draw. The e7 rook dies anyway and White would have won.</p>
  <p>By the way, there is a slight inaccuracy in the solution.
  <em>&quot;Then the bR can be reinstalled on the 8th rank with the wR as a shield that will allow the wK to wait on b5.&quot;</em>
  If you do that, you won't be able to keep up in 75 moves. It is necessary to drive wK only to b7, and then back to c8.</p>
  <p>Next, <strong>I became interested in how much the new rule expands horizons and how much of the task would have to be thrown out if it were redone for 50 moves.</strong>
  The answer was amazing... :)</p>
  <p><strong>And I wonder if anyone has developed this theme for 75 moves?</strong> I just didn't come across such tasks anymore.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-11T22:43:03.093Z
Comments.Text: It chess.se there should only be one question per post, so I have simplified the question in order to avoid disturbing the moderators. See my answer
Comments.UserDisplayName: Laska
Tags: <retrograde-analysis><50-move-rule><75-move-rule>
Title: How does this problem relate to the 50 & 75 move rules?
ThreadText: # How does this problem relate to the 50 & 75 move rules?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-07-11)
  
  ```
  [Title "Draw - T. Volet. Ded. M. Caillaud & N. Plaksin. 1st Prize Rex Multiplex, 1983"]
  [FEN "n4K2/b1pprppp/1p2p3/2p5/N1P3P1/BkP1P3/1P2PPP1/3N1BR1 w - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  I have an interesting story connected with this task. I was given it to solve somehow, the author was named, but they didn't tell me what year the problem was. And they did not warn about the condition of 75 moves. The solution there is simple (the most difficult is a preliminary retroanalysis - it will go further along the rails). And when the sixth dozen moves began, and the end of the solution was still far away, I suspected something was wrong. But I decided to solve it to the end. And when there were exactly 75 moves in the solution, I thought about it! I went to study the Rules. And it turned out that the 75-move rule was added not so long ago. Then I thought that the task was done under the new rule.And in general, there was an assumption that the new rule would allow new ideas to be implemented that previously did not fit into the standard 50 moves.
  And then I saw her here: <https://www.janko.at/Retros/Glossary/FiftyMoves.htm> And there's 1983. And then there was no such rule yet.
  But the task itself is strictly based on the 75-move Rule. Even the move in the position went to black. Because there are 75.5 moves in white's position. Illegally! Therefore, the move is in black's position. White has just made the last 75th move. And the draw was automatically fixed. Even with black's move, it makes no sense for White to play for a draw. The e7 rook dies anyway and White would have won.
  
  By the way, there is a slight inaccuracy in the solution.
  *"Then the bR can be reinstalled on the 8th rank with the wR as a shield that will allow the wK to wait on b5."*
  If you do that, you won't be able to keep up in 75 moves. It is necessary to drive wK only to b7, and then back to c8.
  
  Next, **I became interested in how much the new rule expands horizons and how much of the task would have to be thrown out if it were redone for 50 moves.**
  The answer was amazing... :)
  
  **And I wonder if anyone has developed this theme for 75 moves?** I just didn't come across such tasks anymore.
  
  **Tags:** retrograde-analysis, 50-move-rule, 75-move-rule
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: It chess.se there should only be one question per post, so I have simplified the question in order to avoid disturbing the moderators. See my answer  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2024-07-11. Score: 5
  
  TL;DR I think it’s just a coincidence. I don’t think that even now the composer would like to “retrofit” :-) the 75 move rule into the problem.
  
  I’m fortunate enough to have had discussions with Tom Volet on a number of occasions. He basically wants to force the greatest number of moves since the last zeroing of the count (capture or pawn move). He doesn’t want to be blocked by any 50 move rule or 75 move rule, because these are just unnatural constraints on the task.
  
  As far as I know, his problems do not use the 50 or 75 move rules in any way. If push came to shove he would say that his problems are valid in their own terms and as a free spirit he is not bound by the Codex.
  
  However my own position is that a properly revised version of the relevant article from the WFCC would be consistent with what he is trying to do.
  
  Tom, as far as I remember, is happy with the idea that if it is say 60 moves since the last possible pawn move or capture, that proves that for the last 10 moves no-one claimed the draw. The fact that the game passed beyond that point proved it.
  
  However the draw might have been claimed right at the end in the final diagram position. Since the game did not progress beyond that, there is no way to disprove that. But this does not affect the soundness of the problem at all.
  
  The WFCC Codex Article 17 is widely accepted to be problematic for a number of reasons. It states:
  
  > Unless expressly stipulated, the 50 moves-rule does not apply to the
  > solution of chess compositions except for retro-problems.
  
  Issues include:
  
  1. The FIDE rule speaks of arbiters and time-sheets and clocks and claims. None of these have meaning in the context of a chess problem.
  2. As discussed above, it does not allow for the retro-probability that a player didn’t choose to claim the draw.
  3. It does not clarify that checkmate also zeroes the move count. This is not stated explicitly in the FIDE Law but is a consequence of the timing rule and of the idea that a player who checkmates would not claim a draw with that move.
  4. It does not refute the claim by some problemists that castling (but oddly no other first king move or rook move) should also be considered to zero the count. This is explicitly contrary to the FIDE Law.
  
  The Codex also states:
  
  > 12. Presently the rules defined in the 1 Jan 2018 version of the FIDE Laws are valid. Relevant for compositional chess are articles 1 to 5, 9.2 and 9.3.
  
  This explicitly excludes 75 Move rule from consideration in problems. I think this is fine, although it’s possible a future generation of composers might seek to reverse that.
  
  [See database entry here.](https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P0008399)
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: But the problem clearly applied a limit of 75 moves. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain the transition of the move in the position to black. The task is orthodox: "Draw". White's move is by default.  
  > **username_0**: In general, no one prevents the author from declaring any number finite. And make a task for ANY NUMBER of moves. Moreover, there are examples. Fabel and Cheriani did the task back in 1947: "Last 111 moves are without captures or Pawn moves!" The task is not of the "Last move?" type. Many moves are free. Just 111 moves without taking and pawn movement is the minimum.  
  > **username_0**: "He doesn’t want to be blocked by any 50 move rule or 75 move rule, because these are just unnatural constraints on the task."_Did he tell you WHAT he needed it for?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2024-07-12. Score: 1
  
  Colleague username_1 suggested taking a broader look at the problem. I fully agree with his opinion that there is not a single answer to any question on this topic in the Codex. And we will have to formulate the approaches ourselves.
  
  The first and fundamental question is:
  
  **Does the game stop automatically when 50.0 moves are reached, or can it last indefinitely and we can finish it according to the 50-move rule only in a position on the diagram?**
  
  The very principle of retroanalysis implies that we do not consider previously made moves for meaning and logic (otherwise we would have been in a madhouse long ago!), but only for legality. Accordingly, we cannot imagine a situation where people have been making moves one odder than the other for 50 moves and then suddenly BEGAN TO THINK about whether we should declare a draw. These will never declare anything, and they will move the chips senselessly. So here we have a dead end! And it will be up to us to decide, not these "valiant" players.
  
  And, as always, we have **two options:**
  
  **1. The game cannot last more than 50.0 moves** (positions of 50.5 moves are positions similar to DP+0.5 moves and cannot be in the diagram).
  
  **2. The game can last any number of moves, but the side whose turn it is now has the right to declare a draw if there were more than fifty moves.**
  
  I do not see any real advantages of the second approach, and I will note that Nikita Mikhailovich Plaksin, the most famous expert on this topic, has always adhered to the first approach. In my opinion, **this fact alone is enough to declare the first approach correct**, even without starting a debate. If anyone understands anything at all about the M50, it's a Plaksin. Here, I'm sorry, Thomas Volet (with all due respect to him) is not the figure to "swing your rights" (свои права качать) in this matter. Although, of course, he has every right to any position and we respect his position. Just like any other. But he cannot force it on us.
  
  Next, I will outline the advantages of the first approach (everyone can also outline the advantages of the second one).
  
  **1. We get rid of the confusing procedure of declaring a draw** (the side performing the 50th move must do it BEFORE the MOVE, the move itself is not made and the position cannot appear on the diagram; the side whose turn will be 50.5 does it BEFORE the move). Solving such puzzles is the last thing a simple problem solver needs.
  
  **2. We save tasks like "Last move?" that use the 50-move rule.** Because ONLY the first approach is possible there, with the second approach, the solution in "103 single moves" can easily turn into 0 (if the initial position can be repeated with any series of moves).
  
  **3.There are M50 tasks built according to the RG type (to keep within a given number of moves). Only the first approach does not kill the meaning in them.**. It's not difficult to untie a position, but keeping within 50 moves is already a problem. :)
  
  **4 (the most important point, in my opinion). The second approach misleads the solver.** Assuming that the number of moves can be more than 50, he finds a solution in 57, 54 or 52 moves, **considers it correct and publishes it on serious resources as a solution.** Here is one typical example:
  <https://www.janko.at/Retros/Masterworks/Solutions.htm#6>
  Pay attention to the phrase:
  *So, **the 52-move run has** indeed happened without pawn moves or captures and white can prove the 50-move draw.*
  
  The person was simply not warned that Plaksin N.M. simply does not have tasks in which there can be more than 50.0 moves. If he had been warned, he would have looked for an error in his decision and would have easily found it (an extra third move with the rook h1 and a strange attempt to save one move with the queen by spending two moves with the bishop).
  
  It seems to me that these 4 points are ALREADY enough (although I could write more) to unequivocally determine **that only 1 approach can be correct by default (there cannot be more than 50.0 moves in a position on the diagram).**
  
  At the same time, if 50 moves are not enough for the authors, then who limits them? If M50 is accepted by default, then substitute any number instead of 50 and do the task for as many moves as you need. What's the problem?
  
  Moreover, there are precedents.
  
  ```
  [Title "Dr. K. Fabel and Dr. L. Ceriani. Am Rande des Schachbretts, 1947"]
  [FEN "8/p1b2p1p/8/8/8/1PPPPKPP/bpqrrPBb/kbbnrRRn w - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  The author's question sounds like this:
  **Last 111 moves are without captures or Pawn moves !**
  
  When applying the approach I have proposed, the question could be formulated more successfully:
  **Release the Position (М111)**.
  The mark shows that in the 50 Moves Rule, the value of 50 has been changed to 111. And the solution must fit into this framework.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I'll add it on my own. For this task, 75 moves were not required at all. I experimentally verified that all the ideas of this task can easily be implemented in the standard "50 moves" space. Moreover, I also had to add a preliminary ("zero") phase from myself to the 4 phases of the author. Because 50 didn't come out, only 37-40. And these 10-13 moves had to be composed somehow. That's some fun, I'll tell you.  
  
  ---
  
  