The rule would still apply, of course.
And yes, the game may still continue if neither of the players claims a draw. But if the game goes on for 75 moves like that, then it's an automatic draw regardless.
There are plenty of forced checkmates that need more than 50, 75 or even 100 moves. With best play that is. Noone would be able to perform such stuff over the board anyhow.
The rule would still apply, of course.
And yes, the game may still continue if neither of the players claims a draw. But if the game goes on for 75 moves like that, then it's an automatic draw regardless.
There are plenty of forced checkmates that need more than 50, 75 or even 100 moves. With best play that is. Noone would be able to perform such stuff over the board anyhow.
but surely the arbiter would realize that the point of the 50-move rule was to prevent extremely long games in drawn positions where the players would not agree to a draw and allow the players to keep playing? also, since I can't find any myself, could you post such a position here?
Maybe there are some subtleties as for where arbiters decisions can go, I'm not too informed on that. If you're interested, you may start looking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule
As for longest forced wins, here are some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame#Longest_forced_win
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase#Endgame_theory
Maybe there are some subtleties as for where arbiters decisions can go, I'm not too informed on that. If you're interested, you may start looking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule
As for longest forced wins, here are some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame#Longest_forced_win
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase#Endgame_theory
thx, these positions seem quite interesting to study
So, this is probably never going to happen in a game, but is there a position where it is theoretically possible to checkmate, but to do so, you would need to violate the 50-move rule?
Since we are using computers to analyze endgames, they found a large number of endgames requiring more than 50 moves (without capture / pawn move) to checkmate. For instance an endgame everyone believed a draw 30 years ago: R+B+N vs R+B.
FIDE considered to accomodate exceptions to the 50 move rule but gave it up when the list grew long. So today you gotta do it in 50 and all the theory doesn't matter.
interesting, did not know fide considered a chance to the rule
There are many positions which would be won without the 50-move rule.
Some of them occasionally appear over the board (I remember a game Carlsen-Shirov, KRBP v KRN, both played very sub optimally, and finally Carlsen won).
The 50-move rule still applies, since humans do not play perfect chess. FIDE increased the number of moves for some material configurations, but then changed it back to 50. However, the organizers of a tournament are allowed to increase it for particular cases (never heard of this being done). Also, in correspondence chess, in the ICCF a player is allowed to claim a "tablebase win", even if it can not be achieved with the 50-move rule.
You can check them out:
Btw, in compositions chess the 50-move rule is cancelled alltogether (except for retrogrades). And there are an amazing amount of modern compositions taking advantage of that condition. Not unexpected as composed problems often play out near the border areas of the win/lose/draw territories. "Just winning" translates to "winning after a long series of moves" in these cases.
The simplest example of this is N+N vs P, in some position (I don't exactly remember) the 2 knights need more than 50 moves
... a real case: the 50-move rule puts the advantage player in a corner in certain types of endgame - e.g. king+knight+bishop versus king - in this endgame the slightest mistake is enough to require more than 50 moves to checkmate - maybe FIDE derived the number of 50 moves from this type of endgame, which is difficult to execute even for professionals - this is my hypothesis about the choice of the 50-move limit...
White checkmates in 400
So, this is probably never going to happen in a game, but is there a position where it is theoretically possible to checkmate, but to do so, you would need to violate the 50-move rule? Simply, is there a forced checkmate pattern that takes longer than 50 moves, with none of the moves being captures or pawn moves? Adding on to this, if there were to be such a position, would the 50-move rule still apply or would the game be allowed to continue until checkmate is reached?
Yeah, this has already happened between a robot and a guy (who's name I forgot).
The position would end in a win after several moves, but it would be a draw because of that rule
Actually this will not happen under the 50M rule for the draw must be claimed. There is no certain draw ahead just by knowing you will cross the 50M line. But the rules have recently changed and now there is a 75M rule as well which makes the draw automatic.
There is an ongoing discussion about the question whether or not an unavoidable 75M crossing counts as a dead position before the line is actually reached. FIDE should have clarified the relation between 75M and dead positions at the same time it introduced the automat.
So, this is probably never going to happen in a game, but is there a position where it is theoretically possible to checkmate, but to do so, you would need to violate the 50-move rule? Simply, is there a forced checkmate pattern that takes longer than 50 moves, with none of the moves being captures or pawn moves? Adding on to this, if there were to be such a position, would the 50-move rule still apply or would the game be allowed to continue until checkmate is reached?