x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

2 bishops vs Knight Endgame

  • #21

    There really shouldn't be any limit. If it's something like Queen vs Queen, rook vs rook, then the director could just declare it a draw. If you don't want to play a 500 move game, then don't get into the losing side of a complex endgame, like 2 Bishops vs Knight.

  • #22

    With increment, some of those game could potentially last a very long time, especially since most are not going to be played perfectly. The number of games that by keeping the 50 move rule ultimately impacts, is probably very minor and completing rounds in a reasonable time, is usually a very real consideration for organizers and tournament directors/arbiters.

  • #23

    Yeah, but I think if someone SUCCEEDED to mate his/her opponent in say, 60 moves, it shouldn't be declared a draw on a technicality.

  • #24

    But you can't know in advance that they will do it in 60, it may take them 80 or more and another 30 or 40 minutes potentially (depending on increment and time on clocks). It would be interesting to see how many actual games get down to such a position where the draw gets claimed or where they players take the draw knowing it would be claimed.

  • #25

    Even if time isn't an issue, just the RULE is ridiculous. With perfect play, it can still take 30-40 moves to force mate from some positions. 50 isn't giving much margin for error. What about endgames such as 2 knight vs pawn, or queen+knight vs other pieces, that take 145-551 moves to force mate. They should at least be given 200 moves. There are endgames where even with PERFECT play, it still takes 78 moves to force mate. They should be given a chance, if they ARE able to calculate it, but that's irrelevant. BTW, Knight and Bishop mate is EASY! I only learned 1 pattern, but it still takes me up to 37 moves sometimes to force it. There's a position with a queen and knight vs knight+bishop+rook which takes 550 moves. THAT'S COOL.

  • #26

    It may be cool but would be less than feasible in most tournament settings and other than the more basic mates (less moves), perfect play would be unlikely, by either side (which may even make it somewhat harder for the winning side).

  • #27

    The new rules set the limit of the move series without a capture or pawn move to 75, not 50 moves (article 9.6.2).

  • #28

    They should account for this when they make the time controls/round schedules, but not deprive people of chances to win, especially in endgames where it DEFINITELY takes over 50 moves.

  • #29
    pfren wrote:

    The new rules set the limit of the move series without a capture or pawn move to 75, not 50 moves (article 9.6.2).

     

    Draw can still be claimed at 50 (9.3.2). The 75 move rule is an automatic draw.

  • #30
    EndgameStudy wrote:

    They should account for this when they make the time controls/round schedules, but not deprive people of chances to win, especially in endgames where it DEFINITELY takes over 50 moves.

     

    I'm guessing less than 1% of games even reach a position where mate is possible beyond 50 or 70 moves. It's probably significantly less. It doesn't make any sense to plan around that.

  • #31

    True, but still, u never know.

  • #32
    EndgameStudy wrote:

    They should account for this when they make the time controls/round schedules, but not deprive people of chances to win, especially in endgames where it DEFINITELY takes over 50 moves.

    My idea is sort of like yours, a compromise that they should take into account. It makes sense that there has to be some time limit on games in tournaments, but it also makes sense that if someone has a winning endgame that takes 70 or 150 moves, they should be allowed to win. So maybe they could make a rule that says in these endgame positions (which there are only probably a hundred or so) they could set a limit on time and not moves. Because some people can play 50 moves very fast, in a matter of a few minutes.

  • #33

    BTW, is double check considered a re-set in the 50 move count?

  • #34
    lfPatriotGames wrote:
    EndgameStudy wrote:

    They should account for this when they make the time controls/round schedules, but not deprive people of chances to win, especially in endgames where it DEFINITELY takes over 50 moves.

    My idea is sort of like yours, a compromise that they should take into account. It makes sense that there has to be some time limit on games in tournaments, but it also makes sense that if someone has a winning endgame that takes 70 or 150 moves, they should be allowed to win. So maybe they could make a rule that says in these endgame positions (which there are only probably a hundred or so) they could set a limit on time and not moves. Because some people can play 50 moves very fast, in a matter of a few minutes.

    I completely agree. That's my point. There's a time limit. They have to move within the increment. If they still have alot of time left, then there's time left for the tournament because everyone starts at around the same time.

  • #35
    EndgameStudy wrote:

    BTW, is double check considered a re-set in the 50 move count?

     

    No, only captures or pawn moves reset the move count.

  • #36
    EndgameStudy wrote:
    lfPatriotGames wrote:
    EndgameStudy wrote:

    They should account for this when they make the time controls/round schedules, but not deprive people of chances to win, especially in endgames where it DEFINITELY takes over 50 moves.

    My idea is sort of like yours, a compromise that they should take into account. It makes sense that there has to be some time limit on games in tournaments, but it also makes sense that if someone has a winning endgame that takes 70 or 150 moves, they should be allowed to win. So maybe they could make a rule that says in these endgame positions (which there are only probably a hundred or so) they could set a limit on time and not moves. Because some people can play 50 moves very fast, in a matter of a few minutes.

    I completely agree. That's my point. There's a time limit. They have to move within the increment. If they still have alot of time left, then there's time left for the tournament because everyone starts at around the same time.

     

    But if you have a lot more than 50 moves, that could potentially add a lot of time on the clock. With at 30 second increment, can make the game last a lot longer. It just isn't going to happen again and I don't think the allowance lasted long last time.

  • #37
    EndgameStudy wrote:

    True, but still, u never know.

     

    It's actually pretty trivial to search out the know long mates in large databases.

  • #38
    Martin_Stahl wrote:
    EndgameStudy wrote:
    lfPatriotGames wrote:
    EndgameStudy wrote:

    They should account for this when they make the time controls/round schedules, but not deprive people of chances to win, especially in endgames where it DEFINITELY takes over 50 moves.

    My idea is sort of like yours, a compromise that they should take into account. It makes sense that there has to be some time limit on games in tournaments, but it also makes sense that if someone has a winning endgame that takes 70 or 150 moves, they should be allowed to win. So maybe they could make a rule that says in these endgame positions (which there are only probably a hundred or so) they could set a limit on time and not moves. Because some people can play 50 moves very fast, in a matter of a few minutes.

    I completely agree. That's my point. There's a time limit. They have to move within the increment. If they still have alot of time left, then there's time left for the tournament because everyone starts at around the same time.

     

    But if you have a lot more than 50 moves, that could potentially add a lot of time on the clock. With at 30 second increment, can make the game last a lot longer. It just isn't going to happen again and I don't think the allowance lasted long last time.

    Not an increment, a delay=same amount of time for every move, can't build up time by moving quickly.

  • #39

    The FIDE default is increment and we have been discussing FIDE, though the USCF has the same rules for this.

     

    The simple fact is that the rule was changed once and reverted. I certainly don't expect it to revert back since nothing has changed from the last time.

  • #40

    Most USCF tournaments are Delays; only in blitz is there increments, no?

Online Now