BTW, what is the EXACT nature of the 50 move rule. 50 consecutive moves, after no pawn moves, no captures...What about castling? Double check? Moves that could make progress in the game without captures or pawn moves. For example:
Assume in this position white can castle (no way to prove he can't), and playing 0-0-0 will be the 50th move without capturing, BUT the rook will now be taken next move? This is a win for white.
Ability to castle has no relevance to the 50 move rule (though it is relevant to three-fold repetition of position). After 50 moves with no capture or pawn move a draw may be claimed, regardless of ability to castle.
By the way, in your example position we can say that either (1) White's last move was with king or rook so he cannot castle, or (2) Black has just captured a different white piece, in which case the 50 move rule doesn't apply.
The only way I could see FIDE changing the rules is if they made the 50 move into whatever the minimum amount of moves required was to checkmate for that material.
I think they actually tried this a few years ago, but it just became too complicated working out and keeping track of the required moves for all the different positions and exceptions. So they changed it back to plain 50 moves pretty quickly. It's only going to influence the result in about 1 in a gazillion games anyway so better to keep it simple.
Maybe so but my guess is EndgameStudy has drawn dozens of "won" games because of the 50 move rule. It must be frustrating because surely in some he only needed a couple hundred more moves to force mate.
Actually no. I've Never drawn any chess game cause of the 50 move rule, online or OTB.
Ability to castle has no relevance to the 50 move rule (though it is relevant to three-fold repetition of position). After 50 moves with no capture or pawn move a draw may be claimed, regardless of ability to castle.
By the way, in your example position we can say that either (1) White's last move was with king or rook so he cannot castle, or (2) Black has just captured a different white piece, in which case the 50 move rule doesn't apply.
Your right. Black must have captured a piece on the last move. You get the point though. Castling is a move that can make "Progress" in a game. That's why the 50 move rule excluded pawn moves and captures, because pawn moves permanently change the position and can't reverse their move, and captures obviously simplify the position. But castling and discovered/double checks specifically, can progress the game unlike any other move. They should be included and the rule should be 100 moves if it continues to exist
You can't start sectoring out rules for certain players. A rule has to be for everyone. You can't say a beginner can win by stalemate cause he's inexperienced lol.
You shouldn't exist.
Chill out, piece of sh*t. :-)
[Irrelevant image removed. Posting the same image multiple times is spam, and will get your posting privileges revoked - MOD]
?
Actually no. I've Never drawn any chess game cause of the 50 move rule, online or OTB.
I was joking. I would bet that rule has produced relatively few draws - directly. However, it has probably produced many indirectly (draws by agreement).
At tournaments, it should just be a time control that doesn't allow games to go on forever. 30 seconds increments are incredibly stupid because that means that if u make say 10 moves very fast, now u have an extra 5 minutes. In fact, instead of time going down most of the time, time would GO UP for both players!
For the people who are saying that players won't agree to a draw in a position like this:
All the player who wants the draw would have to do is move their king around randomly without even thinking. It wouldn't exhaust anyone. I'd be laughing at my opponent the whole time as he makes random moves also! I'd be happy to do it with 1 sec on clock w/ 5 sec delay.
There are some rule suggestions that sound good until you think about it. Getting rid of the 50 move rule would ruin chess.
FIDE has actually doubled down on it and now makes a 75 move mandatory draw even if neither player claimed the 50 move rule draw. FIDE's got this one right.
How would the 50 move rule ruin chess? It would make tournament games more interesting. And why 50, 75 and not 100? Given that there are endgames that take well over 50 moves with perfect play to force mate, if the rule continues to exist, it should be AT LEAST 100 moves.
In this position from a blitz championship game, White won, whether it is move 40, 50, or 200. WHITE WON! Black claimed the Nb8 was the 50th non-capture/pawn move move. Who cares what move Nb8 was? White mates next move. How could this game be a draw? Thankfully, the arbiters awarded white the win for this game, and RIGHTLY SO! That's what's wrong with the 50 move rule! People try to claim it even when the game is OBVIOUSLY NOT A DRAW, to escape the mate next move lol!
Ironically, some people think stalemate, which is the most logical draw, should be a win, but think this 50 move stuff should be a draw out of nowhere lol.
Here's a list of only some endgames from tablebases that easily require well over 50 moves WITH BEST PLAY to force mate:
2 Bishops vs Knight
2 Knights vs Pawn
3 Minor Pieces vs Rook
Rook+Minor piece vs 2 Minor pieces
Queen+knight vs Knight, Bishop, Rook
Queen+Knight vs 2 rooks
...ETC...
What is against to keep the 50 movs rule for the general endgames and at the same time make some exeptions and make a list of known endgames that are theoretical won but need more then 50 moves. To extend this rule to for example to 100 moves. Then you don t have to count in the very seldsom positions that need 500 moves that no one understands anyway.
KQ vs KR, u have to get into the philidor position and is easy once from there. Getting there though is hard and I will study it.