Not really, I could still move my king around randomly and he'll never be able to mate me. In fact, with the knight in the corner, there's no position that's mate.
You said you were going to move your king around randomly on squares of opposite colour to my bishop.
Do you now see why the method you actually proposed was 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.
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!
I did ask before, but you didn't answer. Are you referring just to the 50 move rule in the COMPETITION RULES section of the FIDE laws?
There is no NEED for the rule outside of tournaments whatsoever. And I don't understand how your program couldn't mate you with knight and bishop in 33 moves or less?
Not really, I could still move my king around randomly and he'll never be able to mate me. In fact, with the knight in the corner, there's no position that's mate.
You said you were going to move your king around randomly on squares of opposite colour to my bishop.
Do you now see why the method you actually proposed was flawed?
Technically, but even u just made random king moves and he stalemated your king, then u just move the knight, easy
I'm saying this rule shouldn't exist in any way, shape, or form. In a friendly game, it doesn't matter, and in tournaments, u just go by the time left and the time control, NOTHING ELSE. The time control prevents one player from stalling indefinitely in a losing position and the time LIMIT prevents the whole game from continuing too long. Problem solved. As far as what time limit, u go by the tournament schedule and play it by ear. There's no universal fixed limit.
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"
>The question was, what's Black supposed to do in the absence of a 50 move rule in the situation shown, which wasn't actually a tournament game, but if you have decided that we are only talking about tournament games you can instead assume the question is about the Ushenina-Girya game posted in #97.
I am totally at a loss to see how your "answer" relates to the question. Can you be more specific?
"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!"
>It's only irrelevant to the rules of the game in the absence of a 50 move rule or some variant. Variants of the rule are designed to limit the number of useless moves a player can make before his opponent can call a halt.
>It shouldn't be anyone's place to determine whether play is useless; that's why you need a rule.
>I've already agreed that the 50 move rule as it stands is inadequate, but scrapping it and replacing it with a whole game time limit would be a cure far worse than the disease.
>Before you could consider scrapping the 50 move rule you would have to answer the question I posed at the end of #363, which you so far haven't attempted. The question also applies to tournament games. What should be the result if one player walks away as you suggest?
How? If u say the game must end in an hour and a half, ur saying the players can play as many moves as they wish, but have to stop at a certian time. This way, endgames that take 100+ moves could be finished, but the players might have to speed up their play a little. Just saying end the game after 50 or 100 moves, even if there's plenty of time left, there's no reason to, BECAUSE there's time left!
>Before you could consider scrapping the 50 move rule you would have to answer the question I posed at the end of #363, which you so far haven't attempted. The question also applies to tournament games. What should be the result if one player walks away as you suggest?
I answered this question 5 times. The player with the knight and bishop is allowed to keep trying until half an hour before the next round, whether that be 30 more minutes or 2 more hours. If he succeeds, he wins, if he doesn't, then black gets the draw. Simple solution
But then again, discretion because if the time limit expired and the position is like this:
If white makes the waiting move, then u could see if white mates black next move or not, as it would take only 5 more seconds to see.
BTW, there should also be a rule that if a player has only one legal move, he has to make it immediately, and can't stall.
EndgameStudy wrote:
There is no NEED for the rule outside of tournaments whatsoever. And I don't understand how your program couldn't mate you with knight and bishop in 33 moves or less?
There's the same need as there always has been in chess. Tournaments have been around for a little under two centuries but the 50 move rule was introduced by Ruy López about four and a half centuries ago. Why should there be a difference?
As for why Rybka can't do the mate - I have no idea. My old version could, but I got no answer from the Rybka support forum.
EndgameStudy wrote:
There is no NEED for the rule outside of tournaments whatsoever. And I don't understand how your program couldn't mate you with knight and bishop in 33 moves or less?
There's the same need as there always has been in chess. Tournaments have been around for a little under two centuries but the 50 move rule was introduced by Ruy López about four and a half centuries ago. Why should there be a difference?
What does that have to do with my argument? I'm talking about the rule shouldn't exist. U can't justify the rule based on how long it's been around. There should be a difference because tournaments are official with points and scoring, where as 2 friends playing can sit there for 7 hours and keep playing if they both want to and that's their business. They aren't affecting anyone else in terms of future rounds..etc. It's a PRACTICAL rule, not a chess rule.
EndgameStudy wrote:
There is no NEED for the rule outside of tournaments whatsoever. And I don't understand how your program couldn't mate you with knight and bishop in 33 moves or less?
There's the same need as there always has been in chess. Tournaments have been around for a little under two centuries but the 50 move rule was introduced by Ruy López about four and a half centuries ago. Why should there be a difference?
As for why Rybka can't do the mate - I have no idea. My old version could, but I got no answer from the Rybka support forum.
Interesting. Unless the program didn't incorporate the endgame tablebases correctly? What's really interesting is that on Fritz, it could do knight andb bishop mate, but when I threw in an EXTRA knight or bishop, it couldn't. How could an extra piece make it harder for the computer to mate? It should speed it up, as the extra piece could trap the king more, or make waiting moves.
EndgameStudy wrote:
There is no NEED for the rule outside of tournaments whatsoever. And I don't understand how your program couldn't mate you with knight and bishop in 33 moves or less?
There's the same need as there always has been in chess. Tournaments have been around for a little under two centuries but the 50 move rule was introduced by Ruy López about four and a half centuries ago. Why should there be a difference?
What does that have to do with my argument? I'm talking about the rule shouldn't exist. U can't justify the rule based on how long it's been around. There should be a difference because tournaments are official with points and scoring, where as 2 friends playing can sit there for 7 hours and keep playing if they both want to and that's their business. They aren't affecting anyone else in terms of future rounds..etc. It's a PRACTICAL rule, not a chess rule.
I was pointing out that the rule was not introduced for tournament play. Ruy López thought it was necessary in chess in general. I agree with him. If I'm in the same situation as #363 with a friend, I don't want to carry on shuffling my king around till closing time while he fumbles uselessly around.
EndgameStudy wrote:
There is no NEED for the rule outside of tournaments whatsoever. And I don't understand how your program couldn't mate you with knight and bishop in 33 moves or less?
There's the same need as there always has been in chess. Tournaments have been around for a little under two centuries but the 50 move rule was introduced by Ruy López about four and a half centuries ago. Why should there be a difference?
As for why Rybka can't do the mate - I have no idea. My old version could, but I got no answer from the Rybka support forum.
Interesting. Unless the program didn't incorporate the endgame tablebases correctly? What's really interesting is that on Fritz, it could do knight andb bishop mate, but when I threw in an EXTRA knight or bishop, it couldn't. How could an extra piece make it harder for the computer to mate? It should speed it up, as the extra piece could trap the king more, or make waiting moves.
If it had tablebases it may well be able to mate. It could mate before without them. I use Wilhlelm/Nalimov for practice against EGTBs. Tarrasch/Rybka was meant to give practice against slightly substandard play or for variation, but not that substandard. At the moment I've got Tarrasch/Stockfish which is playing at about the same level as my old Rybka (but quicker so I'm happy).
Were you playing with a KBNK EGTB but no KBNNK or KBBNK tablebases? Even then it wouldn't seem correct.
It is not NECESSARY for casual chess at all. They'd just agree to a draw if they were getting tired. If the person with the knight and bishop absolutely had no idea what he was doing, even he would give up after a while. I see the point in tournament chess, but I Think a time limit would be better.
It is not NECESSARY for casual chess at all. They'd just agree to a draw if they were getting tired. If the person with the knight and bishop absolutely had no idea what he was doing, even he would give up after a while. I see the point in tournament chess, but I Think a time limit would be better.
Well you're very good at predicting what people will do, but you've obviouly not met some of the people I know.
What would those people do?
If they've played 10 lost 10 before the game in question and this is their first chance of a win, you can bet they'll play on till closing time and want to carry it on the day after.
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!
I did ask before, but you didn't answer. Are you referring just to the 50 move rule in the COMPETITION RULES section of the FIDE laws?