Hands up everyone who would want to officiate club endgame tournaments of 100 move rules ...
Would a 75 Move Rule be better than a 50 Move Rule?
Sort:
Jun 11, 2019
0
#83
wollyhood wrote:
Hands up everyone who would want to officiate club endgame tournaments of 100 move rules ...
Yeah, when I was 9, I played an 80 year old man that was convinced that the B vs B + P endgame was winning (the bishops were opposite colors) - the game ended by three-fold repetition 34 moves later.
MARattigan wrote:
Please read #51 and think about it. The rule is not interested in how accurate the play has been; only if the player who is claimed against has or has not improved his position by at least one move. As I said the arbiter is not intended to exercise his discretion.
I quote: 'He only has to check what it says for each position and then tell you if the player who is claimed against made progress or not. Nothing more, no moves or who is winning or whatever.'
We clearly fundamentally disagree on what counts as making progress, and I think most arbiters would say that your definition of progress is insufficient. Furthermore, some of your examples are clearly irrelevant to the point at issue. For KQ v KQ, you basically just have to appeal to the arbiter, and s/he will award you the draw almost immediately it appeared - unless the opponent could point to a forced win of the queen or mate (and obviously most players would agree a draw very quickly). And the KR v K, anyone who fails to give mate inside 50 moves is not making any progress at all, and doesn't deserve an extension.
By the way, I still haven't received a satisfactory answer to the question I posed shortly before your #51. My example was very clear: player A has R+B v player B's R. Player B claims a draw after exactly 50 moves. However, player B has failed to notice that in that exact position when he claims the draw, he has a three move sequence allowing him to win player A's rook and reach a won KR v KB ending. How should the arbiter adjudicate that claim for a draw, and why?
wollyhood wrote:
Hands up everyone who would want to officiate club endgame tournaments of 100 move rules ...
Hahaha! Not me!
Jun 11, 2019
0
#86
RubenHogenhout wrote:
MARattigan schreef:
The reason that the 50 move rule should be extended is positions like the following (third diagram in the Batsford Knight Endings book) which I studied till I could guarantee a win with the knights under the 75 move rule that applied at the time, only for FIDE to legislate that I couldn't necessarily any more.
Black to play
But the outside assistance given to your opponent that you refer to would in that instance be at your discretion (you're not forced to claim) and in any case be miniscule. Certainly not a strong hint that he was close to mate. He could be 33 moves away. In general it wouldn't tell him if he was winning, losing or drawn (though in KBNK he probably had a good idea he wasn't losing).
It now depends on what sort of game it is. If it's not a FIDE controlled competition game, I'm allowed to win from the above position again, If it is a FIDE controlled competition, it depends on how wide awake my opponent is if he plays perfectly.
But scrapping the rule altogether means you could have to wait for an awful lot of moves while your opponent works out what to do with a bishop and knight.
So it's a trade off between prohibiting certain wins or passing miniscule information (to both sides).
The FIDE rules have allowed for much more explicit information to be passed in the past. At one time an extension was granted in KNNKP only if White's pawn was blocked behind the Troitsky line, so pretty much asking for the extension told you what the result should most likely be depending on whether or not it was granted.
Thus this position with the pawn one square further then the Troitski line is also won!?
In my analysis of the diagram I gave (not the same as Averbakh's) the 50 move rule started from this position.
I don't know how it would arrive in the position you posted. I couldn't find a way for White to mate within 50 moves (though Syzygy might) , but I thought they had a 75 move rule in effect at that time.
Ironically, FIDE would at one stage have allowed only 50 moves for the position I show above, but granted an extension to 75 moves for the position below.
They apparently don't bother to think before they change these things.
Are you saying that FIDE extended a position where 2N has a mate in three to 75 moves? Would be interesting to see that bulletin ...
Jun 11, 2019
0
#88
BonTheCat wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Please read #51 and think about it. The rule is not interested in how accurate the play has been; only if the player who is claimed against has or has not improved his position by at least one move. As I said the arbiter is not intended to exercise his discretion.
I quote: 'He only has to check what it says for each position and then tell you if the player who is claimed against made progress or not. Nothing more, no moves or who is winning or whatever.'
We clearly fundamentally disagree on what counts as making progress, and I think most arbiters would say that your definition of progress is insufficient. Furthermore, some of your examples are clearly irrelevant to the point at issue. For KQ v KQ, you basically just have to appeal to the arbiter, and s/he will award you the draw almost immediately it appeared - unless the opponent could point to a forced win of the queen or mate (and obviously most players would agree a draw very quickly). And the KR v K, anyone who fails to give mate inside 50 moves is not making any progress at all, and doesn't deserve an extension.
By the way, I still haven't received a satisfactory answer to the question I posed shortly before your #51. My example was very clear: one player claims a draw after exactly 50 moves in a KRB v KR. However, he hasn't noticed that in that exact position when he claims the draw, he has a three move sequence allowing him to win his opponent's rook and reach a won KR v KB ending. How should the arbiter adjudicate that claim for a draw, and why?
We may disagree on what constitutes progress but that is the definition I'm proposing for the rule. You can call it something else such as WDL/DTM improvement if you like.
Concerning KQKQ, as you already pointed out the vast majority of chess games are played without an arbiter. At the moment under FIDE rules that means there is no way to limit these games if you have a pig headed opponent. My suggestion would effectively reinstate the 50 move rule for such games if they are drawn at the outset and remain drawn.
As for KRK, the final example says White has made progress, ergo Black has not. So a claim by Black would fail, but one by White (with the lone king) would succeed. In that instance the draw period would be 25 moves and the game should only get to 50 moves if Black claims first (which, come to think of it, is why I originally made the claim period 50n+1 ply) at which point if Black has not progressed since he claimed a claim by White would succeed.
The draw claim you ask about would succeed unless you had an even quicker route to a win at the start of the claim period. This is only the same as if you offered a draw and it was accepted.
MARattigan wrote:
We may disagree on what constitutes progress but that is the definition I'm proposing for the rule. You can call it something else such as WDL/DTM improvement if you like.
Concerning KQKQ, as you already pointed out the vast majority of chess games are played without an arbiter. At the moment under FIDE rules that means there is no way to limit these games if you have a pig headed opponent. My suggestion would effectively reinstate the 50 move rule for such games if they are drawn at the outset and remain drawn.
As for KRK, the final example says White has made progress, ergo Black has not. So a claim by Black would fail, but one by White (with the lone king) would succeed. In that instance the draw period would be 25 moves and the game should never get to 50 moves.
The draw claim you ask about would succeed unless you had an even quicker route to a win at the start of the claim period. This is only the same as if you offered a draw and it was accepted.
The definition you propose is absolutely terrible, and you're in effect punishing errors very arbitrarily. Furthermore, it goes against the definition of 'making progress' as currently applied in situations where one player is relatively short of time and the opponent must show that s/he is trying to win on the board rather than on the clock.
Once again, I don't understand what you're talking about in the KQ v KQ example. The 50-move rule applies to such positions already.
In the example I gave, I don't understand why the arbiter should not reject the draw claim? Player B is winning now. For 50 moves player B has been defending with his lone rook against player A's rook and bishop, and on move 50 player A blunders. If I understood you correctly, you're all in favour of letting a player who's turned a game around to have more moves. Doesn't that mean that if player B on move 50 (when he had originally planned to claim the draw) notices that all of a sudden he's in fact winning, and continues without making a claim, player A's claim for a draw on the 51st move (when he realizes that he's blundered the game away) should be rejected? I just don't understand the basis for your reasoning. In both cases player B has turned the game around, but in one you would award the draw, in the other you wouldn't. In short, you would penalize the blunder in one case, but not in the other. As the rule currently stands, 'the law's an ass', and the game would have been declared drawn in both cases.
Jun 11, 2019
0
#90
@BonTheCat
Once again, I don't understand what you're talking about in the KQ v KQ example. The 50-move rule applies to such positions already.
Only under FIDE competition rules, not in the basic rules of chess, so not in the majority of games. The 50 move rule was removed by FIDE in 2017.
Improvement or progress, doesn't matter, you're using a very odd definition. Happenstance isn't progress or improvement, it's just chance.
OK, let me get this right ... It's the player's own fault if he claims a draw when he's winning (arguably a blunder of sorts), and the arbiter should punish him by declaring the game drawn. However, if he's losing (having blundered) and claims a draw, the arbiter should reward his opponent by rejecting the claim, and instead give him extra moves in order to execute the win? I just don't get it. In both cases the evaluation of the game has turned from draw to win for player B. The only difference is that in the first case, player B didn't notice, whereas in the second he did. What if the case is reversed, and player B blunders away his rook in the same way, to a three move combination on move 49? When player B claims the draw on move 50, should the arbiter reject it? This time the evaluation has changed from draw to a win for player A. Would it make a difference if player notices it or not? It seems to me that you're OK with outside assistance, as it long as it's not too overt.
MARattigan wrote:
@BonTheCat
Once again, I don't understand what you're talking about in the KQ v KQ example. The 50-move rule applies to such positions already.
Only under FIDE competition rules, not in the basic rules of chess, so not in the majority of games. The 50 move rule was removed by FIDE in 2017.
The 50-move rule doesn't apply in the basic laws of chess? Yes, it does. In chapter 9, The Drawn Game') of the Basic Laws of Chess (in force from 1 January 2018) it clearly states: '9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:' [...] '9.3.2 the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.'
Jun 11, 2019
0
#93
BonTheCat wrote:
Improvement or progress, doesn't matter, you're using a very odd definition. Happenstance isn't progress or improvement, it's just chance.
OK, let me get this right ... It's the player's own fault if he claims a draw when he's winning (arguably a blunder of sorts), the arbiter should punish him by declaring the game drawn, but if he's losing (having blundered) and claims a draw, the arbiter should reward his opponent by rejecting the claim, and instead give him extra moves in order to execute the win? I just don't get it. In both cases the evaluation of the game has turned from draw for player A to win for player B. The only difference is that in the first case, player B hasn't noticed, whereas in the second he has. What if the case is reversed, and player B blunders away his rook in the same way, to a three move combination on move 49. When player B claims the draw on move 50, should the arbiter reject it? This time the evaluation has changed from draw to a win for player A.
A player can't claim a draw under either the 50-move rule or my proposed rule on the move after a piece has been taken, so I don't understand your example. Are you saying that he makes a blunder on move 49 that would with correct play by his opponent result in the loss of his rook three moves later?
The draw period I'd propose for KRBKR would work out at 75 moves by the way.
Jun 11, 2019
0
#94
BonTheCat wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
@BonTheCat
Once again, I don't understand what you're talking about in the KQ v KQ example. The 50-move rule applies to such positions already.
Only under FIDE competition rules, not in the basic rules of chess, so not in the majority of games. The 50 move rule was removed by FIDE in 2017.
The 50-move rule doesn't apply in the basic laws of chess? Yes, it does. In chapter 9, The Drawn Game') of the Basic Laws of Chess (in force from 1 January 2018) it clearly states: '9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:' [...] '9.3.2 the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.'
Chapter 9 is in the section Competition Rules. Prior to 2017 it occurred in both Basic Rules and Competition Rules, but was excised from the basic rules in 2017.
MARattigan wrote:
A player can't claim a draw under either the 50-move rule or my proposed rule on the move after a piece has been taken, so I don't understand your example. Are you saying that he makes a blunder on move 49 that would with correct play by his opponent result in the loss of his rook three moves later?
That's what I said: a three move combination, meaning that the rook will be captured only on move 52 or 53 (depending on whether the blunder is committed on move 49 or 50). To recap: Scenario 1) On move 50, player B claims the draw (because he hasn't noticed that player A has blundered). Scenario 2) Player B plays on (because he has noticed the blunder by player A), and player A, having noticed in the meantime that he's dropped a clanger, claims a draw on move 51. Scenario 3) Player B makes his blunder on move 49, and claims the draw on move 50. His rook will be captured on move 52, and player A has noticed this. Scenario 4) Same as scenario 3, but player A has not noticed that he can capture player B's rook on move 52.
In all four cases, the evaluation has altered from draw to win, but if I've understood you correctly, the arbiter should declare the game drawn in one case, but in the other three reject it and allott more moves to the opponent in order for him to play out the winning combination.
MARattigan wrote:
BonTheCat wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
@BonTheCat
Once again, I don't understand what you're talking about in the KQ v KQ example. The 50-move rule applies to such positions already.
Only under FIDE competition rules, not in the basic rules of chess, so not in the majority of games. The 50 move rule was removed by FIDE in 2017.
The 50-move rule doesn't apply in the basic laws of chess? Yes, it does. In chapter 9, The Drawn Game') of the Basic Laws of Chess (in force from 1 January 2018) it clearly states: '9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:' [...] '9.3.2 the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.'
Chapter 9 is in the section Competition Rules.
The FIDE Laws of Chess encompasses both the Basic Rules and the Competition Rules, so you're proposing this change on what basis? As a basic rule or a competition rule? You're arguing against a competition rule on the grounds that it's not in the basic rules. I don't know about you, but excluding off-hand games, I've never played regulated games where competition rules don't apply. If you play off-hand games and keep score, you're obviously perfectly entitled to scrap the 50-move rule by mutual agreement, and you probably won't have an arbiter present, and you can ask the barman to check the tablebases. Just as you can chose to disregard the rule about draw by three-fold repetition.
Jun 11, 2019
0
#97
@BonTheCat
I'm assuming that in scenarios 1 and 2 it's A who blunders and in 3 and 4 it's B who blunders. Tell me if I've misunderstood Otherwise:
In scenario 1 player B's claim would succeed (A has not made made whatever you want to call it). Result draw - B's fault, should have been awake. Same happens under the 50 move rule.
In scenario 2 player A's claim would fail (B has made whatever you want to call it). Result - play on. If B can manage the win he wins otherwise he doesn't.
In scenarios 3 and 4 B's claim fails (A has made etc.). What A has or hasn't noticed is irrelevant to the adjudication. Result - play on. If A hasn't noticed he can win and fails to capitalise on B's blunder, then he may indeed not win, it depends what the players play.
My proposed rule would actually give a draw period of 75 moves for KRBKR so the move numbers above should be increased by 25, but I've kept them the same to avoid confusion.
Jun 11, 2019
0
#98
BonTheCat wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
BonTheCat wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
@BonTheCat
Once again, I don't understand what you're talking about in the KQ v KQ example. The 50-move rule applies to such positions already.
Only under FIDE competition rules, not in the basic rules of chess, so not in the majority of games. The 50 move rule was removed by FIDE in 2017.
The 50-move rule doesn't apply in the basic laws of chess? Yes, it does. In chapter 9, The Drawn Game') of the Basic Laws of Chess (in force from 1 January 2018) it clearly states: '9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:' [...] '9.3.2 the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.'
Chapter 9 is in the section Competition Rules.
The FIDE Laws of Chess encompasses both the Basic Rules and the Competition Rules, so you're proposing this change on what basis? As a basic rule or a competition rule? You're arguing against a competition rule on the grounds that it's not in the basic rules. I don't know about you, but excluding off-hand games, I've never played regulated games where competition rules don't apply. If you play off-hand games and keep score, you're obviously perfectly entitled to scrap the 50-move rule by mutual agreement, and you probably won't have an arbiter present, and you can ask the barman to check the tablebases. Just as you can chose to disregard the rule about draw by three-fold repetition.
As a basic rule. FIDE can override it for competitions and stick with the 50 move rule. They have schedules and sponsors to think about and audiences probably mainly don't find 100 move endgames as interesting as what comes before.
I've played lots of games in chess clubs without clocks, arbiters or the rest of the paraphernalia under Competition Rules where it's nevertheless assumed that the FIDE Basic Rules apply. Same in games with colleagues, family etc. - if there are any arguments about the rules the answer is generally to look it up in the FIDE handbook.
If I understand the FIDE documentation correctly, the Competition Rules are meant to apply only to FIDE regulated games, but of course local bodies such as USCF can impose their own rules unless they want the results to be recognised by FIDE. The majority of the games I play are not in FIDE regulated tournaments. I would imagine that applies to the great majority of people who play chess (school chess ladders etc.).
Jun 11, 2019
0
#99
BonTheCat wrote:
... Although I use the KBN v K endgame as an example, it probably wouldn't be the worst case of outside assistance - but I would definitely feel hard done by should the arbiter reject my the claim after 50 moves, having looked at the table base and seeing my opponent still being 33 (or say 25) moves from mate. That would basically represent zero progress.
However, I don't think such clear cut endgames would represent the worst cases of outside assistance (after all, most players beyond absolute beginner level know that KBN v K is a win, even though they might not be able to execute it). For me, it would be the non-theoretical endgames where such a rejection of a draw claim could prove a crucial hint that there's a win somewhere. ...
On the contrary, it's the clear cut endgames where there is most information given by a rejected no progress claim. If the players already know that there is no chance of a win by the side claiming, as e.g. in a claim by Black in a KBNK position, then a rejected draw claim confirms to both sides that White has has a theoretical win. It is difficult to see how this would help either player. White has presumably been already attempting to win throughout the draw period and Black attempting to stave off the win so how would their play change as a result?
But there is less to be deduced if the ending is not clear cut. Suppose a few moves after the "monster" position you gave White promoted his pawn and reached, say, this position.
:
It's quite likely that neither player is sure if it's a theoretical win or a draw or, if it's a win, for which side it's a win.
But they play on and when the draw period elapses 100 moves later, they reach, by accurate or erratic play, the following position:
It is still quite likely that neither player is sure if it's a theoretical win or a draw or, if it's a win, for which side it's a win, but suppose that Black makes a draw claim under my proposed rule at that point. It would be rejected because Lomosonov (and the "arbiter") know that White has adjusted the WDL/DTM balance in his favour. Lomosonov and the "arbiter" also know by how much, but the players know only that it's at least one ply. They still can't be sure if it's a theoretical win or a draw or, if it's a win, for which side it's a win, so it's even more difficult to see how their play would change as a result.
Jun 11, 2019
0
#100
BonTheCat wrote:
Are you saying that FIDE extended a position where 2N has a mate in three to 75 moves? Would be interesting to see that bulletin ...
He also has a mate in 1. (Can you see a mate in 3 that doesn't reset the move counter?)
But the rule was that the extension was granted in positions where the pawn was blocked behind the Troitsky line (as it is in the mate in 1), but not otherwise. (And, yes, I know it makes no sense at all, even if you don't consider the mate in 1 positions.)
I agree with you that the rule also gave far too much information to the players.
Checkmate with a Bishop and a Knight is for me very easy and I can do it within the 40 moves easy. Mostly about 36 or 37 moves. Thus this is no issue at all.
Yes, but we're not specifically talking about you here. We're talking in generalities. We have to define what should count as progress in order for the arbiter to accept the claim or reject it and extend the limit. Furthermore, I was only using the KBN v K as an example because I think it's relatively clearcut.