Seconding what Strangemover said (comment #3). If I had a forced mate in 500, you would resign, right?
The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Strangemover wrote:
Unfortunately the nature of discussion in an open online forum means that the discussion does not necessarily end once someone has typed 'end of discussion' 😀
I was referring to the game where one player will mate, not to the discussion of the topic!
Sylvex wrote:
I don't think it should take 50 moves to mate somebody...
In some endgames, such as 2 bishop vs knight, 2 knights vs pawn (pawn moves though...), rook and knight vs bishop and knight, and queen and knight vs rook, knight and bishop, can take well over 50 moves WITH BEST PLAY BY BOTH SIDES (sometimes over 550 moves).
Sylvex is right. If you've got sufficient material to mate, it shouldn't take 50 moves. Suppose a player doesn't know how to force mate with a bishop and knight against a lone king. Should the game continue indefinitely because he doesn't know how to win it? Or suppose the position is clearly drawn but one player insists on continuing. Should the game continue indefinitely because he refuses to accept that it cannot be won? The 50 move rule is a good and necessary one.
FBloggs wrote:
Sylvex is right. If you've got sufficient material to mate, it shouldn't take 50 moves. Suppose a player doesn't know how to force mate with a bishop and knight against a lone king. Should the game continue indefinitely because he doesn't know how to win it? Or suppose the position is clearly drawn but one player insists on continuing. Should the game continue indefinitely because he refuses to accept that it cannot be won? The 50 move rule is a good and necessary one.
You didn't read everything. There are some endgames where it takes well over 50 moves to win WITH BEST PLAY! And yes, in endgames where it's just queen vs queen or rook vs rook..etc, where there are no obvious skewers/mating tactics etc, it should just be declared a draw IMMEDIATELY, reagrdless of #of moves. Players, who know they are going to get mated next move shouldn't cheat by claiming a draw, WHEN THEY KNOW THE GAME WILL END NEXT MOVE LOL!
This was a position from a game in the world blitz championship. Black tried to claim 50 move rule by stating that Nb8 was the 50th move or some b.s. like that. He claimed 3 separate times and then there was a 5 minute argument with the arbiters about what the result should be. They decided to give white the win, and RIGHTLY SO!
Without that rule a player with K+B+N versus K who does not know the mating method might decide to study it on the board even if it takes 800 moves until he/she stumbles into the mate. After all there is nothing to lose.
Oct 16, 2017
0
#69
EndgameStudy wrote:
FBloggs wrote:
Sylvex is right. If you've got sufficient material to mate, it shouldn't take 50 moves. Suppose a player doesn't know how to force mate with a bishop and knight against a lone king. Should the game continue indefinitely because he doesn't know how to win it? Or suppose the position is clearly drawn but one player insists on continuing. Should the game continue indefinitely because he refuses to accept that it cannot be won? The 50 move rule is a good and necessary one.
You didn't read everything. There are some endgames where it takes well over 50 moves to win WITH BEST PLAY! And yes, in endgames where it's just queen vs queen or rook vs rook..etc, where there are no obvious skewers/mating tactics etc, it should just be declared a draw IMMEDIATELY, reagrdless of #of moves.
By that rationale though, to proceed it one step further, then any round might as well be declared a draw on move 1. Obviously this is flawed though; errors can (and likely will) be played.
BlargDragon wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:
How about the largest prime number known, with 8 million digits. Make that the rule.
That's a good idea, but the problem is that the largest-known prime is fluid with innovations in computing, so we'll have to define it in those terms so FIDE doesn't have to re-write the rulebook every 15 seconds once quantum computing has a breakthrough.
How about simply 1 trillion moves. Problem solved.
.I guess it depends. But the rule is there because there's no surefire way to prove whether the player with the advantage knows how to mate or not. I guess you could somehow use an engine, but I think the rule and possible TD discretion is ample
EndgameStudy wrote:
FBloggs wrote:
Sylvex is right. If you've got sufficient material to mate, it shouldn't take 50 moves. Suppose a player doesn't know how to force mate with a bishop and knight against a lone king. Should the game continue indefinitely because he doesn't know how to win it? Or suppose the position is clearly drawn but one player insists on continuing. Should the game continue indefinitely because he refuses to accept that it cannot be won? The 50 move rule is a good and necessary one.
You didn't read everything. There are some endgames where it takes well over 50 moves to win WITH BEST PLAY! And yes, in endgames where it's just queen vs queen or rook vs rook..etc, where there are no obvious skewers/mating tactics etc, it should just be declared a draw IMMEDIATELY, reagrdless of #of moves.
You're right that I didn't read everything. Thought I was on page 1 but realized after my post that I was on page 4. But I did read your comment above later. I get your point. I didn't address a situation in which more than 50 moves are necessary in order to force mate. But suppose with perfect play 70 moves are necessary (without a pawn move or piece capture). How many moves are necessary with imperfect play? Obviously there is no limit. Should the game continue indefinitely just because a forced mate is possible? Even though the 50 move rule might be unfair in rare circumstances, it is practical and it's far better than the alternative, which would allow clearly drawn games to continue indefinitely.
I think the rule should be at least 100 moves, if at all.
Sylvex wrote:
.I guess it depends. But the rule is there because there's no surefire way to prove whether the player with the advantage knows how to mate or not. I guess you could somehow use an engine, but I think the rule and possible TD discretion is ample
That's why there's time control. I'm just saying people shouldn't be able to take advantage of the rule to cheat their way out of an inevitable mate in 2 or 3 moves, like in that blitz championship example.
Brendan_UK schreef:
Ok @ #47, It would be easier for people to participate if instead of an image you set up a shareable FEN board like this
Black to move. White forces mate in 545 moves.
This positions with a mate in 545 are very interesting but for a human impossible to understand. The Bishops and Knight and King versus King is very easy learn. And with easy position it is possble about 26 moves and in the bit harder positions it is possible in abou 36 moves. In any case I need about that many moves myself to checkmate someone or the computer. All to all this is easy to master. A bit more problems I have with endgames like two Knights against a pawn, with are known for a longer time. Even allready in a pre computer time Troitsky wrote a book about this end game. And he proves then allready that many of these endgames are won but need more then 50 moves to checkmate te opponent. But these endgames are to understand. For some endgames as named before that are completly draw and van win only on time it is good that a 50 move rule exist. But for example the following endgame I think there must be an exeption. And give it for example 100 moves instead of 50. And maybe other difficult endgames like Two Bishops against a Knight that is won. Or Two minor pieces versus a Queen. Did you know that two Knights draw against a Queen. But two Bishops and a Bishop and a Knight lose? Take this endgame. Here it will take more then 80 moves to checkmate.
RubenHogenhout schreef:
Brendan_UK schreef:
Brendan_UK schreef:
Ok @ #47, It would be easier for people to participate if instead of an image you set up a shareable FEN board like this
Black to move. White forces mate in 545 moves.
This positions with a mate in 545 are very interesting but for a human impossible to understand. The Bishops and Knight and King versus King is very easy to learn. And with easy position it is possble about 26 moves and in the bit harder positions it is possible in about 36 moves. In any case I need about that many moves myself to checkmate someone or the computer. All to all this is easy to master. A bit more problems I have with endgames like two Knights against a pawn, with are known for a longer time. Even allready in a pre computer time Troitsky wrote a book about this end game. And he proves then allready that many of these endgames are won but need more then 50 moves to checkmate the opponent. But these endgames are to understand. For some endgames as named before that are completly draw and can win only on time it is good that a 50 move rule exist. But for example the following endgame I think there must be an exeption. And give it for example 100 moves instead of 50. And maybe other difficult endgames like Two Bishops against a Knight that is won. Or Two minor pieces versus a Queen. Did you know that two Knights draw against a Queen. But two Bishops and a Bishop and a Knight lose? Take this endgame. Here it will takes 86 moves to checkmate Max Euwe did explained this ending from about move 60 allready long ago.
EndgameStudy wrote:
Sylvex wrote:
.I guess it depends. But the rule is there because there's no surefire way to prove whether the player with the advantage knows how to mate or not. I guess you could somehow use an engine, but I think the rule and possible TD discretion is ample
That's why there's time control. I'm just saying people shouldn't be able to take advantage of the rule to cheat their way out of an inevitable mate in 2 or 3 moves, like in that blitz championship example.
Taking advantage of a rule is not cheating. A draw may be claimed if no pawn is moved nor piece captured in 50 moves. That's the rule. A mate that requires two or three moves beyond the 50 is not inevitable. I think the 50 move rule makes sense. Obviously you disagree but it's certainly not cheating to play within the rules, whether you agree with them or not.
Even if you had to draw the occasional game because you have two knights vs pawn, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
EndgameStudy wrote:
The 50 move rule isn't fair. If for example in a knight+bishop endgame, the winning side finally has a forced mate, but the final mating move is move 51 or move 65..etc, it IS STILL A CLEAR WIN , and should not be declared a draw on a technicality. There are also endgames where well over 50 moves are required to force mate. Examples include 2 knights vs. pawn, rook+knight vs bishop+knight, and even one 500 move mate with a queen and knight vs. knight+bishop+rook. The 50 move rule shouldn't just give the losing side a way out of an easily won position
At the risk of appearing lazy, I would consider the draw a bargain if the alternative was playing another 500 moves for the win. Man, you must really despise draws.
Unfortunately the nature of discussion in an open online forum means that the discussion does not necessarily end once someone has typed 'end of discussion' 😀