Fun Game Construction Contest!
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
eric0022 wrote:
As in what EndgameStudy means is that, there is no need to unnecessarily repeat a position. In my game at one point, I repeated several moves after realising that one Black pawn blocked the path of my king in such a way that my king was unable to avoid travelling along previously accessed squares.
I can't remember whether my opponent offered a draw (it was Computer2-MEDIUM) in the game. Maybe not, maybe once. Of course, making normal chess moves automatically reject draw offers that the opponents make. An exception is if I exceeded the 50-move allowance (I think that if the opponent offers a draw before you make a move, and subsequently you make a move that causes a threefold repetition to occur, the draw claim would be rendered invalid since a move made by you nullifies the offer, but the opponent can again offer draw once more, in which case the draw is in effect immediately).
If I put the game into analysis, maybe the whole page will be filled with missed mates and faster mates.
and blunders,inaccuracies and mistakes
eric0022 wrote:
this is the 400 move game. I declare a fifty move rule draw
madscientist2969 wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
this is the 400 move game. I declare a fifty move rule draw
Arbiter, you came too late. The game has already been declared a win. Show over. Have a good day.
Never mind, you can be an arbiter for this game. Anyway, here are the details, which you can find in the game, to prove that the fifty move limit is not breached at any point in the game, where a move is defined as one turn by White plus one turn by Black, or vice versa with respect to, and starting from the turn in which, the player who performs the previous capture or pawn push.
62. e8=N was played, so this move resets the 50-move count. Of course there were so many captures in the preceding turn that the 50-move rule does not kick in at all before move 62.
86. N3xh4 was played, 24 moves after the previous instance of a capture or a pawn push.
88. g3 was played, 2 moves after the previous instance.
93. h4 was played, 5 moves after the previous instance.
130. Nxc7 was played, 37 moves after the previous instance.
172. g4 was played, 42 moves after the previous instance. I was mindful of a possible threefold repetition during those 42 moves.
211. h5 was played, 39 moves after the previous instance. I did not move the knights as I was worried that the Black king might escape from the corner.
252. h6 was played, 41 moves after the previous instance.
280. Kxb6 was played, 28 moves after the previous instance. For some reason I got impatient (or maybe I was not intending to carry on at that point of time), so 282. b6, 283. b7 and 284. b8=N followed soon after.
296. h7 was played, 12 moves after the previous instance. This is immediately followed by 297. h8=N.
303. g5 was played, 6 moves after the previous instance. This time, I wanted the Black king to leave that corner, and I was worried that the Black king would return to the same corner, thus I got impatient.
346. g6 was played, 43 moves after the previous instance.
394. g7 was played, 48 moves after the previous instance.
441. g8 was played, 47 moves after the previous instance.
The game ended in a further 49 moves on move 490.
Therefore, I declare your declaration invalid.
EndgameStudy wrote:
In fact, anyone who pulls this 50 move rule b.s. should be disqualified!
The 50 move rule was invented just to prevent players from circling around aimlessly for long when they have sufficient material and the technique needed to land a checkmate quickly, since most decisive endgames, including king, bishop and knight versus king, can end quickly even with best play from the defending player,
If the 50 move rule does not apply, the game would probably still be running now without me having to sleep at all.
eric0022 wrote:
The 50 move rule was invented just to prevent players from circling around aimlessly for long when they have sufficient material and the technique needed to land a checkmate quickly, since most decisive endgames, including king, bishop and knight versus king, can end quickly even with best play from the defending player,
If the 50 move rule does not apply, the game would probably still be running now without me having to sleep at all.
I remember the time when my dad and I used to play a few years ago, while both of us had no idea about the drawing ways.. When we got into a repetition position, we simply moved the same piece back and forth till one of us conceded by playing another move (it almost always was my dad). And when we had nothing but two kings, we just moved them back and forth all the time, until he gets exhausted and turns away from the game, while I proclaim myself as the winner.
EndgameStudy wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:
In fact, anyone who pulls this 50 move rule b.s. should be disqualified!
The 50 move rule was invented just to prevent players from circling around aimlessly for long when they have sufficient material and the technique needed to land a checkmate quickly, since most decisive endgames, including king, bishop and knight versus king, can end quickly even with best play from the defending player,
If the 50 move rule does not apply, the game would probably still be running now without me having to sleep at all.
That's why there's time control. And I told you, if it was just a useless knight vs bishop or rook vs rook endgame, they should just agree to a draw (assuming no skewer tactics/mates are possible). If they don't, then they're just stupid. Even if someone didn't know how to mate with a knight and bishop, as long as they have the time, they should have the right to keep trying. It's not gonna hurt the other player to figure out where to move his lonely king.
A repetition of positions for the king, bishop and knight versus king endgame is likely possible if the games are allowed to continue beyond the 50-move rule. I guess that some arbiters will not be too happy that several players make insufficient efforts to win the game. The situation is similar to a hypothetical case where several policemen fail to nab a single thief after chasing the thief around for very long. The policemen will do as far as they can to catch the thief, but at the end of the day, they would have to return to the station even if the thief has not been caught yet,
EndgameStudy wrote:
But what about endgames that take 80, or 200-300 moves to force a win? 2 bishops Vs Knight, and Queen vs Rook, or rook+knight vs bishop+knight? You might say a person couldn't calculate it perfectly, but since BOTH players probably won't play perfectly, one player can still win.
There will definitely be a minority of these cases where there is a forced mate which cannot be achieved in fewer than 51 moves with best play. It's a pity that the beauty of the techniques of these checkmates cannot be realised to their fullest due to the 50-move rule, but we cannot do much about the rules though. However, in practical play, most likely the defending side will not be able to come up with the best options all the time within a single game.
EndgameStudy wrote:
They gotta get rid of that rule, or at least change it to 100, and only use it when necessary, like in queen vs queen drawn endgames.
They had rulings of 75 moves before. Not sure about 100 though. But perhaps it would be good to allow exceptions to the 50-move rule in these exceptional endgames.
Presenting "The Goofy Stalemate"
There's no real strategy in it, but it's the funniest stalemate you'll ever find.
F
tttttttt
IS THIS A WINNER?