Maybe yes. But it would be simple figures, such as 100, 200, or 300 moves. Not 230 or 175, which would be ridiculous
The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!
Sort:
Nov 6, 2017
0
#443
I don't think we're talking about the same post. It's post #432 (née #447). I didn't suggest changing the figure from 50.
U did suggest at one point, having specific rules for different types of endgames. That would be better. If the rule was 100, no less, for all endgames, instead of 50, I wouldn't be making a big deal about it at all.
Nov 6, 2017
0
#445
EndgameStudy wrote:
U did suggest at one point, having specific rules for different types of endgames. That would be better. If the rule was 100, no less, for all endgames, instead of 50, I wouldn't be making a big deal about it at all.
The longest mate known is #524 which is pawnless and has only 5 men other than the kings. Against correct defence this could not be acheived within a 100 move rule.
You don't say why that is better than what I suggested in #432.
I meant to be address the question to RubenHogenhout.
The longest mate known is in 545 moves. 432 Sounds like a good idea, but disputes would probably break out over what's defined as progress. For example, in the 1st position, white has made progress, but the 2nd one doesn't indicate anything:
VS:
This position after 100 moves doesn't indicate anything.
Nov 6, 2017
0
#447
EndgameStudy wrote:
The longest mate known is in 545 moves.
OK. Not known to me. If that's a pawnless 7 man endgame the same would apply.
It is.
Nov 6, 2017
0
#450
MARattigan wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:
The longest mate known is in 545 moves. 432 Sounds like a good idea, but disputes would probably break out over what's defined as progress. For example, in the 1st position, white has made progress, but the 2nd one doesn't indicate anything:
VS:
This position after 100 moves doesn't indicate anything.
You don't seem to have read what I wrote very carefully.
An extended progress period would be granted only if Lomonosov shows progress (Shredder in the average friendly), otherwise it's declared a draw.
In the absence of access to any tables it would be declared drawn as at present. There should be no argument.
Progress would be deemed to have been made by the opponent of the player making the claim if the position when the move counter was last reset to zero was evaluated by Lomosonov as lost for the opponent but is evaluated as drawn or won for the opponent at the time of the claim, alternatively if it was previously evaluated drawn and evaluated won at the time of the claim, alternatively it was evaluated lost in both cases but the DTM has increased or won in both cases but the DTM has decreased. The only information passed to the players would be whether or not the claim was successful.
If the claim were disallowed the move counter would be reset to zero and the game continues.
In the first position you show, White has not necessarily made progress. If the position at the start of the 50 moves were mate in 1 then he's gone 19 moves backward and it would be declared drawn.
Similarly in the second.
If the draw claim were made by Black (as seems probable) White would get an extra 50 moves before another draw claim is allowed just as long as he has reduced the theoretical DTM by at least 1 move since the KBNK appeared or the last draw claim was made. In other cases the claim would be valid.
I'm still curious as to where they got 50 moves from, and not 100?
Nov 6, 2017
0
#452
EndgameStudy wrote:
I'm still curious as to where they got 50 moves from, and not 100?
"They" was apparently Ruy López and I don't think he gave any reason. I would guess he'd decided the maximum for KBNK was around 33 and it was probably about the hardest winnable endgame and added 50% for luck.
Well that was pretty stupid to base a rule on 1 endgame.
Nov 6, 2017
0
#454
EndgameStudy wrote:
Well that was pretty stupid to base a rule on 1 endgame.
People have been known to propose stupider rules.
Nov 6, 2017
0
#455
EndgameStudy wrote:
For example, in the 1st position, white has made progress ...
Better but Black should play 6...Kg7 followed by 7...Kf6. It lasts out a move longer because White can no longer play either of the moves 7.Bd4 or 7.Bg5 that he might like to play with the White king on f7.
7...Kg7 is a worse mistake since it allows 8.Ke6. Mistakes by both sides after that.
From the position you show there are a fair number of ways to mate in 20, but none in less against accurate defence.
Whatever, it's an easy mate bottom line. The moves don't have to be perfect. Same exact thing is accomplished. I don't see what the problem is in allowing 100 moves for this particular endgame
Nov 7, 2017
0
#457
In view of earlier discussions I thought you were showing the mate could be forced in less than 20. I s also see no problem in allowing 100. My suggestion could in some unlikely circumstances allow up to 1650. If you made it a fixed 100 then some theoretically won positions would be impossible to finish without a possible draw under the rule.
1650? I thought the longest mate was in 545? Did they discover longer ones?
Nov 7, 2017
0
#459
545 is the longest known with accurate play by both sides. From a position with highest DTM (33 moves) in KBNK White could actually acheive only one move's progress between each draw claim giving 33x50=1650 moves in total. In fact if Black forgot to claim in good time on occasions, it could be even longer.
Nov 7, 2017
0
#460
MARattigan wrote:
545 is the longest known with accurate play by both sides. From a position with highest DTM (33 moves) in KBNK White could actually acheive only one move's progress between each draw claim giving 33x50=1650 moves in total. In fact if Black forgot to claim in good time on occasions, it could be even longer.
For a 115 KNNKP position the sum would give 115x50=5750.
If Black were to keep an accurate count of repeated positions, neither of these may be actually acheivable. (Try constructing an example in KBNK.)
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.
Do you think my suggestion in (what is now) post #432 would solve the problem?