4 ms·

> Those are obscure. Obscure, but also completely to do with how the pieces on the board can actually move, which I bet most people would have suspected that w

> Those are obscure. Obscure, but also completely to do with how the pieces on the board can actually move, which I bet most people would have suspected that we worked out a few centuries ago. The decision of who goes first doesn't really matter, it's a purely aesthetic choice. Similarly there's a lot of regulatory changes to this day around things better described as "playing conditions". But banning 0-0-0-0-0-0 is fundamentally the same category of change as saying "oh and also the queen can move like a knight now", which seems like an absolutely ridiculous thing to have still been refining in the 1970s.

esrauch 5y ago
There's no way they would have allowed 0-0-0-0-0-0 or "promote to opposite color piece" in a real game if GMs tried it in 1965. It's only ambiguous wording of the rules that was fixed in 1970, and not actually a capability of pieces.
- sellyme 5y ago
  > It's only ambiguous wording of the rules There was nothing ambiguous about it. There was no possible interpretation of the rules that would have prevented those moves.
  - esrauch 5y ago
    IRL games don't blindly execute the rules like video game code: in rare cases it's possible for the rules are poorly worded in a way that would allow something stupid, and yet that wouldn't be actually permitted play by any reasonable player or arbiter. It's happened several times in MtG tournament history for example, where some mechanism was so clearly against the intended rules that the judges just didn't allow it even though it would have worked as a strict reading of the rules (nonsense about actions "between turns" and I recall Yawgs Will exiling as a triggered effect both just getting shut down by judges). The two things you mention are solely gags for funny chess puzzles about what is an obvious oversight in some specific written rulesets, not actually something that would have actually been legal play.
    - sellyme 5y ago
      > in rare cases it's possible for the rules are poorly worded in a way that would allow something stupid I would not describe either of the chess examples as "stupid". "silly", sure, but neither of them is really any more ridiculous than en passant is. > It's happened several times in MtG tournament history for example, where some mechanism was so clearly against the intended rules that the judges just didn't allow it I feel like it's fair to make a distinction between a game like MtG where interactions and synergies are sufficiently complex enough to make those weird edge cases requiring an arbiter an inevitability, and chess, a game that's surely simple enough that it's reasonable to expect the rules to cover all on-board actions. That said, if you have any specific examples here I'd love to hear them. I know of some absolutely batshit things that are technically possible in MtG, but I'm not sure I've heard of any stories of them happening in ostensibly legal tournament play. (Since we're discussing absurd rules lawyering in TCGs now, you may be interested in the legendary 3000 card Yu-Gi-Oh! deck that was once played in a tournament setting)
      - esrauch 5y ago
        The two cases MtG I know of off hand are to do with accidentally broken rules updates. One was when the added a moment "between turns" where you could activate abilities but not cast spells (added to make Time Vault work). The interpretation that you could activate wall of roots infinitely is similar to the chess cases you're pointing at ("once per turn doesn't constrain what I do between turns"). The other was Yawgs Will exiling effect was briefly a triggered effect instead of a replacement effect which let Yawgs Will + Dark Ritual also be a trivial infinite, which wasn't even rules lawyering it just was so clearly broken and unintended that Arbiters didn't allow the official rules and eratta to ride. But really I don't think any of the rules of chess ever unambiguously allowed either of the things you said, they are both extreme rules lawyering primarily known for their humorous value, and the rules being clarified they aren't allowed doesn't prove they were allowed before. E.g. 0-0-0-0-0 claimed a pawn promoted to a rook is "a piece that hasn't moved", and easily could have been rejected as saying it is the same piece that moved while it was a pawn. En Passant is widely know and explicitly specified in the rules, taught, and played by even low level players, so there's no way it's similar. I think it's impossible to know unless you can find a case where someone actually attempted the moves, but I feel pretty confident they just wouldn't have been allowed and if you tried a similar gag at a rated chess event today the arbiter would just tell you that you're crazy.

esrauch 5y ago

There's no way they would have allowed 0-0-0-0-0-0 or "promote to opposite color piece" in a real game if GMs tried it in 1965. It's only ambiguous wording of the rules that was fixed in 1970, and not actually a capability of pieces.

sellyme 5y ago
> It's only ambiguous wording of the rules There was nothing ambiguous about it. There was no possible interpretation of the rules that would have prevented those moves.
- esrauch 5y ago
  IRL games don't blindly execute the rules like video game code: in rare cases it's possible for the rules are poorly worded in a way that would allow something stupid, and yet that wouldn't be actually permitted play by any reasonable player or arbiter. It's happened several times in MtG tournament history for example, where some mechanism was so clearly against the intended rules that the judges just didn't allow it even though it would have worked as a strict reading of the rules (nonsense about actions "between turns" and I recall Yawgs Will exiling as a triggered effect both just getting shut down by judges). The two things you mention are solely gags for funny chess puzzles about what is an obvious oversight in some specific written rulesets, not actually something that would have actually been legal play.
  - sellyme 5y ago
    > in rare cases it's possible for the rules are poorly worded in a way that would allow something stupid I would not describe either of the chess examples as "stupid". "silly", sure, but neither of them is really any more ridiculous than en passant is. > It's happened several times in MtG tournament history for example, where some mechanism was so clearly against the intended rules that the judges just didn't allow it I feel like it's fair to make a distinction between a game like MtG where interactions and synergies are sufficiently complex enough to make those weird edge cases requiring an arbiter an inevitability, and chess, a game that's surely simple enough that it's reasonable to expect the rules to cover all on-board actions. That said, if you have any specific examples here I'd love to hear them. I know of some absolutely batshit things that are technically possible in MtG, but I'm not sure I've heard of any stories of them happening in ostensibly legal tournament play. (Since we're discussing absurd rules lawyering in TCGs now, you may be interested in the legendary 3000 card Yu-Gi-Oh! deck that was once played in a tournament setting)
    - esrauch 5y ago
      The two cases MtG I know of off hand are to do with accidentally broken rules updates. One was when the added a moment "between turns" where you could activate abilities but not cast spells (added to make Time Vault work). The interpretation that you could activate wall of roots infinitely is similar to the chess cases you're pointing at ("once per turn doesn't constrain what I do between turns"). The other was Yawgs Will exiling effect was briefly a triggered effect instead of a replacement effect which let Yawgs Will + Dark Ritual also be a trivial infinite, which wasn't even rules lawyering it just was so clearly broken and unintended that Arbiters didn't allow the official rules and eratta to ride. But really I don't think any of the rules of chess ever unambiguously allowed either of the things you said, they are both extreme rules lawyering primarily known for their humorous value, and the rules being clarified they aren't allowed doesn't prove they were allowed before. E.g. 0-0-0-0-0 claimed a pawn promoted to a rook is "a piece that hasn't moved", and easily could have been rejected as saying it is the same piece that moved while it was a pawn. En Passant is widely know and explicitly specified in the rules, taught, and played by even low level players, so there's no way it's similar. I think it's impossible to know unless you can find a case where someone actually attempted the moves, but I feel pretty confident they just wouldn't have been allowed and if you tried a similar gag at a rated chess event today the arbiter would just tell you that you're crazy.