Stength of the players shouldn't really be relevant. If a player wins, he wins, doesn't matter if it took longer than another player. He won, end of story. Why should a player who mated in 48 moves win, but a player who won in 52 moves only get a draw?
The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!
Sort:
Nov 8, 2017
0
#483
EndgameStudy wrote:
Stength of the players shouldn't really be relevant. If a player wins, he wins, doesn't matter if it took longer than another player. He won, end of story. Why should a player who mated in 48 moves win, but a player who won in 52 moves only get a draw?
I agree. I think the first KRK game I showed in #483 should be a win for White 3 moves later. That's why I think the 50 move rule should be a "no progress" rule of the kind I've suggested.
I agree.
Nov 8, 2017
0
#485
RubenHogenhout wrote:
You can do that. Of course. But I wonder myself is it fair that one endgame for example Mate with a Queen that can be done mostly in a move of 9 you get 50 moves and and other endgame for example Bishop en Knight you need about 36, I gues, also give you 50 moves. And other two Bishops against a Knight are so hard that after only one inaccurate move it is not possible anymore to win. And other endgames it is not even possible in 50 moves. Must be not the abillities and the possiblities to make only one inaccurate move not be the same for all this endgames? And therefor one endgame given more moves as the other?
This is inevitable. If there is a won position for either side in any endgame then there is also a mate in 1 position for the same side. If you have the same number of moves allowed for positions in that endgame and there are complex positions in the endgame you necessarily have a wide discrepancy between the complex position and the mate in 1. If you try to find a rule based on individual positions, that would give too much information to the players about their particular position.
By the way I think my "no progress" rule would solve your quandry in #460 as well as the problem you describe above. Would you agree?
But then MINIMUM move limit for ANY endgame should be AT LEAST 100, agreed?
Oh come on, 100 moves is nothing.
Nov 8, 2017
0
#488
EndgameStudy wrote:
But then MINIMUM move limit for ANY endgame should be AT LEAST 100, agreed?
No. If a player has made absolutely no progress or gone backwards in 50 moves then his opponent should be able to claim a draw.
And why would you need 100 moves for any KBKN position?
They can wait t'ill 100 moves.
LilBoat21 wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:
Oh come on, 100 moves is nothing.
then shouldn't it be longer
I said AT LEAST...
Nov 8, 2017
0
#491
EndgameStudy wrote:
They can wait t'ill 100 moves.
They don't want to, and no reason they should. Playing 100 moves in KBKN is totally pointless.
So when the 100 moves is up, they get to stop.
Why not?
U realize that everyone's gonna agree to a draw in a millisecond in that endgame.
It's not like they'd even play 10 moves in that endgame.
[COMMENT DELETED]
A whole HOUR. Yet they make 3 hour time controls with 30 second increments.
They don't want the endgame, the most important phase of a chess game, going on too long, but taking 4 hours to get to the endgame is OK.
Nov 8, 2017
0
#499
EndgameStudy wrote:
U realize like no one is gonna do that, and an arbiter should just declare a draw on the spot.
Under what rule? For any theoretically drawn position?
Should he declare a draw on the spot here?
White to play.
MARattigan schreef:
If a player made exactly one move's progress in each "no progress" period for 33 moves it would be vanishingly unlikely that this happened by chance. He would have to have a valid method of mating that just happened to be 50 times slower than optimal. In that case he would know how to do it (just not how to do it very fast).
There are perfectly valid methods of playing various endgames that are considerably slower than optimal. KRK shouldn't take more than 16 moves, but in the following example White uses a perfectly valid mating technique, but around three times slower than optimal (against Black's defence).
Mammoth games where the stubborn player is playing randomly would effectively not occur even in the absence of claims under the repetition rule because the probability of surviving n draw claims would decrease exponentially with n.
White's method is in fact three times slower only against the defence used by Black. Had Black played accurately the method would have been only one and a third times slower than optimal. Here is the same method played from the same position against the Nalimov EGTB.
This methode is really ridicules. It can be checkmate much faster, For example I give two moves.
I chose the method deliberately to be pants. I wanted a method that would infallibly win but could fail under the 50 move rule. Any such method would necessarily be pants.
This endgame could occur only between beginners, because KRK would otherwise last 0 moves. (Black resigns.) I would say that the White beginner having reached a won position and conceived an infallible method of mating from that position (no matter how pants) deserves a win.
The main point was actually to illustrate your earlier point about the relative strength of play between players who don't play accurately.
Neither player plays accurately in the first example, but by the time the game terminates Black has outplayed White by 35 moves and swindled half a point.
Nalimov plays with perfect accuracy and manages to outplay White (who uses exactly the same method as in the first game) by only 5 moves and loses.