jsaepuru: I would say that under 9.6, the arbiter has the obligation to be sure that scenario doesn't occur. (S)he should be prepared to stop the clocks and declare the game drawn as soon as the 75th non-pawn, non-capturing move has occurred for both sides.
New 75 move rule
Sort:
once the scoresheet is signed it's signed, sure the player can do a request, but it's very difficult the result will be change, and most of that is the fide arbiters commition do have last decision.
But the situation you propose actually can happen only in secondary tournament because all the important tournament are followed also with digital board. There's always more than one arbiter, and when a critical moment arrive an arbiter is always near there in order to certificate.
"Even more than 75." Indeed. The longest known forced win in a pawnless endgame is King, Queen, and Knight vs. King, Rook, Bishop and Knight, requiring 545 moves, and the first capture occurs on White's 511th move:
It is expected that once 8-man tablebases are calculated, endings requiring 1000+ moves will be discovered.
For seven more positions requiring a ridiculously high number of moves (not all of them pawnless), see this article: http://tb7.chessok.com/articles/Top8DTM_eng
This happened today in TCEC 9 (Stockfish 8- Houdini 5, 17th game of the match) and was adjudicated as a win for white. It's a draw with the 50 move rule, and a win with the 75 move one.
Nov 15, 2016
0
#26
pfren wrote:
This happened today in TCEC 9 (Stockfish 8- Houdini 5, 17th game of the match) and was adjudicated as a win for white. It's a draw with the 50 move rule, and a win with the 75 move one.
I was wondering what was going on. The only confusion about this is that the TCEC rules say nothing about a 75-move rule. (They only mention the 50-move rule.)
The 75 move rule is at the same level as "mate" or "stalemate". Basically, a rule which declares when a game ends.
The 50 move rule is at the same level as "resignation" or "agreed draw". It allows a player to make a claim to end a game, but the player has an option to refuse it. Now, if two as good super computers were against each other, then from the perspective of one computer, it would be outright stupid to claim the draw (positive evaluation), the other computer wants to end (negative evaluation).
Of course, players don't have to do the objectively best thing, so neither of them can claim the draw - in which case, the 75 move rule is needed to finish the game.
Sep 24, 2020
0
#28
Daarzyn7 wrote:
The 75 move rule is at the same level as "mate" or "stalemate". Basically, a rule which declares when a game ends.
The 50 move rule is at the same level as "resignation" or "agreed draw". It allows a player to make a claim to end a game, but the player has an option to refuse it. Now, if two as good super computers were against each other, then from the perspective of one computer, it would be outright stupid to claim the draw (positive evaluation), the other computer wants to end (negative evaluation).
Of course, players don't have to do the objectively best thing, so neither of them can claim the draw - in which case, the 75 move rule is needed to finish the game.
Maybe I'm missing something in your meaning here. Are you saying that a player can chose whether or not to claim the draw in that situation? Because once a player claims, the game ends in a draw if the claim was valid.
Ciak wrote:
In any situation the arbiter stops the clocks and try to understand what happened and will done questions to the players.
He can decide whether to restore the game and how much time to give according and following the rules but also in relation to the best for the tournament.
In the case of an illegal move as you propose after the checkmate, he will wonder why it was not highlighted during the game. It does not seem possible that we aware the illegal move if not analyzing the game, but in this that case the score will have been delivered.
In the situation as you proposed it's easy to think that it is done for a personal convenience and for that reason the arbiter will probably give 0 to both players.
...ok.
A good example of failure to claim is Lputyan vs. Harutyunyan.
After 86.h6, no captures or pawn moves for next 56 moves.
The 6 piece position (White as attacker, QPP vs Q) was a tablebase draw till Black blundered on
141....Qf7, giving a forced checkmate in 13.
After 142.Qf7+, exploiting the forced win in 13, Black resigned, despite still having the right to claim draw.
Probably Black did not notice that he was safe because of 56 moves.
So, now that the 75 move exists... does the arbiter have the right, and the duty, on seeing from the scoresheet that the defender has missed the draw claim at 75 moves without progress, to overrule the checkmate position on board or resignation, and impose draw?