Originally posted by Dragon FireWell, as Schumi pointed out, the same player has to have the move when a certain position is reached. This is not the case in my game.
It does not matter what move you make to get to the position nor what move you make from the position. What matters is that the position is dynamically the same (i.e. that all the same moves are possible, including e.p., castling, etc.). If RHP does not permit this then there is a flaw in its draw algorithim.
Originally posted by Mad RookIn the whole thread, there was not one single suggestion about any move in this particular game. It is all about the rules. And as I can see from the different contributions, it seems not as simple as one might think.
The original poster knew he was commenting on a game in progress, but he did it anyway. Several others have also commented on this in-progress game in this thread. You guys just can't follow simple rules, can you?
Originally posted by gambit05While it's true that nobody suggested a move, there were opinions given to the player about whether specific moves made in the game constituted a case of 3-position repetition. That's going beyond just discussing a rule interpretation, and as far as I'm concerned, that constitutes giving assistance to the player.
In the whole thread, there was not one single suggestion about any move in this particular game. It is all about the rules. And as I can see from the different contributions, it seems not as simple as one might think.
Originally posted by Mad RookDo you can tell me which of the posts gave me any assistance that might influence the outcome of this game?
While it's true that nobody suggested a move, there were opinions given to the player about whether specific moves made in the game constituted a case of 3-position repetition. That's going beyond just discussing a rule interpretation, and as far as I'm concerned, that constitutes giving assistance to the player.
Originally posted by gambit05Yes, I can, but the posts are there for everyone to read. If someone opines that a specific move in the game is only a 2 position repetition and not a 3 position repetition, then the player (who might have previously thought that he'd already achieved the 3 position repetition) could use that information to attempt to play a certain move to achieve a 3 position repetition and therefore obtain a draw. In that case, the assistance would be potentially influencing the outcome of the game. I realize that this situation is not as sinister as actually making a move suggestion, but it seems to me that it's assistance nonetheless.
Do you can tell me which of the posts gave me any assistance that might influence the outcome of this game?
I'm sure that your intentions are honorable, but once you open a thread on an in-progress game, it's very easy for the discussion to inadvertently stray into the area of providing assistance. That's why the moderators have previously stated that it's much safer to simply not comment on games in progress. My recommendation for any subsequent posters to this thread would be to carefully stick to commenting on rule interpretations only and to not mention any specific moves in the game. Of course, it would be even safer to simply not make any further posts to this thread until the game is finished. Just my two cents, if anyone disagrees with my interpretation of the assistance rule, it's no big deal to me. 🙂
Originally posted by Mad RookThanks for your insights, but I don't think I could use any information. I would claim a draw anyway, if the position would show up again.
Yes, I can, but the posts are there for everyone to read. If someone opines that a specific move in the game is only a 2 position repetition and not a 3 position repetition, then the player (who might have previously thought that he'd already achieved the 3 position repetition) could use that information to attempt to play a certain move to achieve a 3 pos ...[text shortened]... nyone disagrees with my interpretation of the assistance rule, it's no big deal to me. 🙂