King and knight vs king and bishop is even easier. I'll just move my king around on opp. Colored squares as the bishop and I'll never risk being mated. As I said, just because some stupid people want to keep playing knight vs bishop endgame, doesn't mean the complicated games that people want to play out should be limited by the rule. 50 moves can be played in 10 minutes. Why would both players want to stop after 10 minutes in a complex endgame? Saying the game must end in x hours is giving them a limit, but not limiting the actual moves on the board. They could play 100 moves or 500 moves depending on how fast they play. This would be in addition to standard time CONTROL. That way one player couldn't wait out the other for 3 hours. DUH. Its more reasonable to give them all the time practically available then say 50 moves is a draw regardless of the position, time left, or condition of both players. If the next round starts in 2 hours, give them 1 more hour so everyone has a break, but also a chance to finish the game.
The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!
... If 1000 moves were played in an hour, people wouldn't mind.
I don't think this is true either. As far as I understand it increments were introduced to avoid high quality games turning into farce at the end because one or both players were forced to move at 1000 mph. and the idea met with general approval.
My point is that if they were moving every 5 seconds, 50 moves is nothing.
Losing ones queen in the middle game can be a gross mistake, but he can still win fair and square.
True. A gross mistake shouldn't cost you the game if you're clever enough to recover from it.
But what's the answer to my question? If you're up against an opponent playing like Rybka in the example in post #363 and there's no 50 move rule (as indeed there now shouldn't be) what are you supposed to do?
That's a computer, not a human, no arbiter..etc. Were talking tournaments, where people would reasonably agree to a draw, or a director would enforce a draw In a useless knight vs bishop ending.
I still don't get how they came up with 50? Given that some endgames, like 2 bishops vs knight, can take 70-80 moves, why not make it 100? I could see it being 100, but 50 is pushing it a little.
EndgameStudy wrote:
"King and knight vs king and bishop is even easier. I'll just move my king around on opp. Colored squares as the bishop and I'll never risk being mated."
>The whole point is how long for? In KNKB white can be tied up indefinitely in the absence of the 50 move rule if Black refuses to draw (though in a drawn KQKQ White can force end of game, usually within a dozen moves even if Black doesn't want to stop).
>The method you gave for KNKB is flawed by the way.
"As I said, just because some stupid people want to keep playing knight vs bishop endgame, doesn't mean the complicated games that people want to play out should be limited by the rule."
>And as I said, Stockfish is just stupid that way. There's nothing an opponent can do about it.
"50 moves can be played in 10 minutes. Why would both players want to stop after 10 minutes in a complex endgame? "
>Possibly because some stupid rule has been introduced limiting the time for the whole game and that's all they have left.
"My point is that if they were moving every 5 seconds, 50 moves is nothing."
>And the play would almost certainly be nothing special.
"That's a computer, not a human, no arbiter..etc. Were talking tournaments, where people would reasonably agree to a draw, or a director would enforce a draw In a useless knight vs bishop ending."
>The game in question is not knight v bishop.
>post #97 gives a similar game between humans.
>In post #223 you say, "The rules of the game have to take ALL possibilities into account, ...". It now appears that you want to scrap the 50 move rule only for competitions. Is that correct?
>If the director were given the authority to call a draw in won games like the one I showed, that could only be because no progress was being made. You would need to specify some number of moves that must be made before the director should call a draw. How many moves would you suggest? (Would 50 be about right?)
>You still haven't answered the question I asked at the end of post #363. That question illustrates exactly the reason for the 50 move rule. If you want to argue for its deletion then you need to have a good answer.
I would say that 50 moves should be sufficient for any 4 man ending. It leaves at least 17 moves spare from any 4 man position even if you play against a perfect opponent.
Not in fact true. There are KRKN positions that need 40 moves to mate against best defence,
How is my technique for knight vs bishop flawed?
Players would agree to a draw in knight vs bishop. There are no players stupid enough on the planet that would keep playing unless there was a mate in 1 next move. Your talking realism here, well realistically players would agree to a draw.
You know I meant the time limit wouldn't be 10 minutes. Come on. I said x hours, which could allow for over 1000 moves
EndgameStudy wrote:
How is my technique for knight vs bishop flawed?
Post your moves here as White and see how long you can just move your king around on opposite colour squares to my bishop. I'll post the responses.
Players would agree to a draw in knight vs bishop. There are no players stupid enough on the planet that would keep playing unless there was a mate in 1 next move. Your talking realism here, well realistically players would agree to a draw.
I keep telling you. Stockfish won't agree a draw. Neither will Rybka.
You know I meant the time limit wouldn't be 10 minutes. Come on. I said x hours, which could allow for over 1000 moves
But a really tasty complex endgame could appear after x hours minus two minutes.
And you still haven't answered the question I asked at the end of post #363.
Players would agree to a draw in knight vs bishop. There are no players stupid enough on the planet that would keep playing unless there was a mate in 1 next move. Your talking realism here, well realistically players would agree to a draw.
I keep telling you. Stockfish won't agree a draw. Neither will Rybka.
But u can just walk away! Were talking tournaments, not playing for fun on ur computer!
EndgameStudy wrote:
How is my technique for knight vs bishop flawed?
Post your moves here as White and see how long you can just move your king around on opposite colour squares to my bishop. I'll post the responses.
Actually I wouldn't move my king at all, just my knight around, cause if he takes it, it's insufficient material!
And you still haven't answered the question I asked at the end of post #363.
Yes I did, were not talking about playing vs ur pc at home, were talking about tournaments, where there's actual points and scoring. The answer is whatever time is left before, say, a half-hour before the next round. If they're worried about the tournament being held up, then maybe even 50 is moves is too much, but if you're gonna let it go 50 moves, then why not 100, 200 or 500? If time is the issue, then just terminate the game when time's up, no matter how many moves were played. Just because few moves were played doesn't mean deep calculation didn't go in to the moves. If there's no time left, then they'll have to end the game anyway even BEFORE 50 or 100 moves anyway, so the only thing to do is limit the time since that's the only problem to begin with.
As for your argument of "useless" play; that is irrelevant to the rules of the game. It's also not anyone's place to determine that play is useless and there might be deep calculations going on that we don't see, such as subtle manuvreing, fortresses being broken, triangulations, zugzwangs, and trapping slowly, but is progressing the game!
Players would agree to a draw in knight vs bishop. There are no players stupid enough on the planet that would keep playing unless there was a mate in 1 next move. Your talking realism here, well realistically players would agree to a draw.
I keep telling you. Stockfish won't agree a draw. Neither will Rybka.
But stockfish CAN mate with a knight and bishop within 33 moves u said yourself, so if it's not doing that, there's something wrong with the program.
EndgameStudy wrote:
How is my technique for knight vs bishop flawed?
Post your moves here as White and see how long you can just move your king around on opposite colour squares to my bishop. I'll post the responses.
Actually I wouldn't move my king at all, just my knight around, cause if he takes it, it's insufficient material!
You asked me why the method you proposed was flawed. Presumably you now see why.
... If 1000 moves were played in an hour, people wouldn't mind.
I don't think this is true either. As far as I understand it increments were introduced to avoid high quality games turning into farce at the end because one or both players were forced to move at 1000 mph. and the idea met with general approval.