? What exact thing exactly?
Why would they want to? They generally just finish the game under standard rules if adjournments are allowed. What would be the advantage? Why would you want to put any limit on games (e.g. the Rybka Nakamura game I showed) that are progressing?
Nobody has managed anything like 1000 moves so far, so it would effectively be a non rule anyway.
If you want to allow more moves for games that appear not to be progressing the you could use my suggestion in #447.
They should just play everything by ear and use discretion. No strict move limits or time limits. There is no perfect way to go about it. It's just that people shouldn't be able to claim a draw after 50 moves when they'll be mated next move. That's the MAIN MAIN problem. It is taken advantage of to escape inevitable losses.
See post #477 - that would answer your MAIN MAIN problem. Having no rule akin to the 50 move doesn't answer the question I posed at the end of #363. That's the fundamental question you need to address if you advocate such a course.
And the 50 move rule was designed for opponents who won't agree a draw in pointless situations. You can't have a rule that says, "my mate EndgameStudy says you should use discretion".
My answer is still the time limit. Just exhaust the time before the next round or x minutes before, depending on the tournament schedule. If they can ADJUST their schedule,, then they can up the 50 moves alot. If u get one of those nakamura vs computer games, then u adjust the schedule, That's the maximum amount that the game could go on anyway, REGARDLESS OF ANY MOVE LIMIT OR HOW MANY MOVES ELAPSED ANYWAY. I think 2 or 3 hours would gaurantee nakamura the time to win. Unless your willing to implement a 500 move rule, nakamura will DEFINITELY be robbed of a win. At least the time limit allows for 1000 moves. Assume each player makes a move every 5 seconds in a blitz game, that's 1 more every 10 secs AT MOST, meaning 6 moves a minute, 360 moves an hour, or 1000 moves in 2.5 hours.
You're not achknowledging my point. Gotta go, be back in a few
Post #447 acknowledges your MAIN MAIN point.
As for your idea of limiting games that are making perfectly satisfactory progress - no, I'm not acknowledging it. I think it's a daft idea. You either have to set the limit too high to have any effect at all or you get the problems I listed in #453.
In the former case there's no point. In the latter it would do exactly the opposite of what you want.
(By the way, Nakamura was never in danger of a claim under the 50 move rule anyway and he did win - in a tiny 255 moves.)
Assume each player makes a move every 5 seconds in a blitz game, that's 1 more every 10 secs AT MOST, meaning 6 moves a minute, 360 moves an hour, or 1000 moves in 2.5 hours.
Carlsen v Anand 2014 ran to 122 moves. It took over 6 hours.
The rules have to accommodate chess as well as blitz.
If the main reason is not to hold up the tournament, then how does saying the game must end in x hours worse than the 50 move rule. It would be in addition to the players clocks. This way players have to move within their time left, but also finish the game in a certain time limit. I asked something 5 times, if they are so worried about the schedule, what makes u think they'll have the patience for even 50 moves? At least with the time limit, there's no problem with playing 1000 moves, just have to do it faster. Seems fair to me. Better than a rule that just says after 50 moves, game has to end immediately, even if with perfect play, the endgame will take 100 moves to win. BTW, the 50 move rule almost robbed that example I showed several pages ago, with Rook vs knight, the winner of a win. And that wasn't even 250 moves, just 50 moves.
And if USCF or FIDE insisted on a move limit and wouldn't give it up, just make it 100 moves, no less, and of story. But still with discretion, if there's an easy mate in 2 or 3, just wait an extra 10 seconds to see if it happens, if not, then call it a draw.
Well, I'm afraid the intellectual pressure of the discussion is becoming too much for me. I'll have to bow out.
Really? LOL
You should invite your Max friend over to this thread. He'll be happy to argue with you about this rule for years.
I'm here for the chess dudes, just for the chess dudes.
You're here for the chess dudes? This ain't match.com, you know.
You should invite your Max friend over to this thread. He'll be happy to argue with you about this rule for years.
He'd probably agree. If he thinks such an obvious rule like Stalemate should be a win, he'll definitely think this rule is non sequitur
Today I saw the following endgame between to ladies.
I was rather difficult and it became clear when I looked it up in a table base that it was winning from the begining till the end. But.... white only won not because she did understand how to win but because black finaly cracked and had only 11 moves to claim a draw with the 50 move rule. Here it is.
What's your point with that game? Supporting or against the rule?
What's your point with that game? Supporting or against the rule?
Good question. I even don t know. I think both not. But only to show that in praktice games are won also wile not understanding the way to win, but only because the other side also don t know how to defend. In this case the win is clear ( accoording to the table base ) but very hard to do in praktice. So to win in 50 moves is for this kind of endgame allready a little moves you get. So the piont is that for some endgames that are won but hard or need more then 50 moves there need to be a list to extend the 50 move rule and given extra moves. For example in any case the Two knight against the pawn. And also the two bishops against a knight and the queen against two bishops and maybe also the Queen against rook and pawn. If it is won the only 50 moves are not fair because not enough to show what you can do. But in some cases it also can become clear that someone just don t get it and don t know how to win. Then you must after some time be able to claim something.
Exactly. That's my point all along. What is really stupid though, is how is lets players get a draw out of inevitable mates in a completely lost position just cause 50 moves went by. There should either be a time limit instead of move limit, or just make the rule 100 moves. I don't get why didn't make it 100? Where did they get 50 from? 100 would be much better.
So they could do that exact same thing with a longer time limit. They could also do a combination, such as 1,000 moves or x hours, which ever is longer.