The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

I want everyone to know, these OBVIOUS DRAWN POSITIONS are NOT What I was talking about. 1st of all, it's common sense that in a queen vs queen position or whatever, the players should DUH agree to a draw. If they don't then they are just retarted lol. . Of course if all the pawns are locked and the kings can't penetrate, that's actually insufficient mating material. Those OBVIOUS draws like the with the bishops..etc, are NOT what I meant. Here's a not-so-good analagy to help explain what I mean. Let's pretend the chess board was 200*200 squares, and u wanted to force mate with a queen and king vs king. It's extremely easy to do, it would take well over 50 moves due to the distance the pieces must travel. I know that is not the case with normal 8*8 chess, but the point is that there are some complex positions that require alot of subtle manuevring. Whether u think a human is able to see it or not is not the point. I completely understand the purpose of the rule, but I think if 2 players got into an obvious draw, such as queen vs queen, or rook vs rook..etc, they would agree to a draw. if they don't well they have problems. Alsop, the guy who has the lone king vs the kngiht and bishop, it's not gonna hurt him or exhaust him to move his king around randomly. People complain, ohh the players will exhaust themselves playing out the position. That's not gonna happen if 1 player just moves his king around for alot moves. Also, why 50? I could see 100, but 50 is cutting it too close. Some Endgame problems require alot more than that. It's that simple. Whether a person could calculate it or not isn't the issue. The 2 knights vs Pawn endgame is the perfect example. It can take over 100 moves of manuering, but IT IS STILL A FORCED MATE. Again whether the pawn is moves or not isn't the point here. Players can reasonably see if a position is a draw and if one player disagrees, like in a queen vs rook endgame, the person with the queen has the right to try to win. The result of the game should be based on the position, not how many moves it takes.

+MayCesar, Yeah that position is an OBVIOUS DRAW,and if the players don't agree to a draw on that, they have no common sense. The director would just declare it a draw.

If you know how to execute K+B+N vs Lone K, in the WORST starting position possible, it's Mate in 33!

That gives you 17 moves leeway to screw it up and still win, and in most cases, you'll start from a more optimal position where it's probably mate in somewhere in the 20s.

So 50 moves is plenty!

"The result of the game should be based on the position, not how many moves it takes." (OP)

Apparently you did not read a post I made. End game table bases are filled with positions where with best play by both sides it takes 200, 300 even 500 moves to force a checkmate. You think the game should be declared a win based on this ?

But why shouldn't someone be given 150 moves to find a checkmate with the B + N ?. After all he may have spent hours reaching a won endgame. Let the next pairings wait ! What's fair is fair. Everyone can gather round the table and learn from his bumbling mistakes. Snacks and coffee can be served. If there's a big screen and video so much the merrier !

I see people questioning the rules for USCF.  They are different from FIDE.

In FIDE, it's all about whether a mate is physically possible.  Same thing goes for claiming wins on time.  If you are White with a Light-Squared Bishop and a King, and Black has a whole bunch of material, including an h-pawn, White would still win on time if Black's flag falls because a mate is physically possible via help mate.  Black King goes in the corner on h1, pawn advances to h2, White King ends up on f1 or f2, no Black piece covers f3 or g2, and White plays Be2-f3 Mate!

USCF is different.  Director cannot end the game.  Must be called by the players.  The 3-fold repetition is pretty much the same.  50 move rule is pretty much the same.  Any capture or any pawn move resets the 50 move counter.  Here's what's different pertaining to end of game results (there are other differences, like rules about promotion or illegal moves, but just dealing with end of game here)

1) K, K+B, K+N, or K+2N and Opponent has NO PAWNS, are all deemed insufficient mating material.  If your opponent's flag falls, it is a draw UNLESS (and here's the part that is different than chess.com which shows the flaw in chess.com) forced mate can be demonstrated, then it's a win.  For example, WKe6, WBh6, BPh7, BKg8, BPe7, Black to move, and he lets his flag fall.  On chess.com, that's one f'ed up draw.  In USCF, it's a win because Black's only legal move is 1...Kh8, then 2.Kf7, and then any legal move is going to be any push of the e-pawn, and 3.Bg7 is mate, and so here, White would win in USCF if Black's Flag fell.  In FIDE, it's an obvious win because any possible mate, forced or not, dictates a win.

2) Arbiter can never call draw by moves or repetition in USCF.  FIDE, arbiter can call not only on 75 moves, but also on 5-fold repetition.

3) K and LSB vs K and DSB is an immediate draw in USCF because neither has mating material.  FIDE it would have to be agreed because a mate is still possible.  K and LSB vs K and LSB or K and DSB vs K and DSB would be an instant draw as mate is physically impossible.

There are none in the table bases though where no pawn move is involved.  Once a pawn is moved, the counter restarts.  So it could take 49 moves, then White moves his pawn from a2 to a3, then 49 more, then a3-a4, then 49 more, then a4-a5, then 49 more, then a5-a6, etc.

Ok, you want to hold up the tournament, huh?

I promote 3 pawns and won  your Queen.  I move them to a1, a2, b1, and b2, and so you have the following position:

Black outright refuses to resign.  Do you realize how many positions White can achieve without even 2-fold repetition.  Combinations of 4 queens?  Imagine if it were one of each piece?  Now Qa1, Ra2, Nb1, Bb2 would be different than Ba1, Ra2, Qb1, Nb2.  At 30 seconds increment per move, you'd be here for ever waiting on these two clowns to end the game!

Some cases USCF gets it right, other times FIDE has a better interpretation. There is a 3rd set of rules that get used by online chess sites that can be different from each other and the before mentioned.

Might lighten up a bit TFan. If you've read my posts you'd know where I stand. Twas a tongue in cheek post showing the absurdity the claim is that games should be declared a win based on position and not physically proved over the board in the time/moves given.  

This is entirely incorrect. Search the 7 game table bases and positions. No pawns are involved. Just Kings  Queen and minor pieces. No restarting of a move count.

taking sh$t seriously on the chesscom. if 2 guys are going to bore the spectators throw them out of the playing hall.

http://tb7.chessok.com/

For Lomonosov 7 piece table bases. Front page shows 546 move forced mate. No pawns

get the machines out of chess!

What's wrong with chess games that take 500+moves. That would be SOOOO COOL!

+ThrillerFan, Yeah that would be so cool. screw the 50 move rule. lets enjoy the thrills of chess. if a guy want to spend 2 hours trying to figure it out, let him! won't hurt the losing side!

+omnipaul, yeah, ok, that position is not dead, but either side could LITERALLY SPEND 0 TIME making moves. Unless he deliberatley puts his king and bishop in the corner, there's absolutely no way either side can win. ALL he has to do is move his knight every move and he'll NEVER RISK LOSING!!

I am glad there is such a thing as the 50 move rule. Of course if there is a capture or a pawn move the count starts over. It encourages players to better learn the endgame and stops games going on forever when the player with more material doesn't have the skill to force a mate. btw i have been here a number of years and only once did i end up with a knight, bishop and king vs. a king. I managed to mate but it was a challenge.

Aesthetically the 50 move rule is an abomination, an arbitrary imposition on beautiful endings which can take much longer. But practically, it is very sensible, so I would not support removing the rule.

Chess players are human and playing out 100 move technical endings accurately is not much fun. The 50 move rule does not harm chess as a competitive activity.

It is however well ignored when studying the theory of endings, including that in tablebases, which have now discovered endings that need hundreds of moves without a pawn being moved or a capture occurring.