Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:16:36 05/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2002 at 14:32:25, Harald Faber wrote: >On May 30, 2002 at 09:04:40, Mike S. wrote: > >>On May 30, 2002 at 08:25:40, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>>(...) >>>To ignore that there are endgames with mate or catching pieces in >50 moves >>>makes FIDE also out of real life like the Catholic Church and the Pope >>>(although they do not have much in common with chess). >> >>I think FIDE doesn't ignore (as there were exceptions, temporarily), but has >>decided so on purpose: It is a matter of definition. What is a *won game* (with >>emphasis on "game"), and when should it be declared as drawn (i.e. because of >>too long maneuvring, where nothing "substantial" happens)? > > >This should be easily answered! > > >>There are two things, which are not necessarily the same: >> >>(1) The (theoretical and technical) possibility to force a mate, no matter how >>long it takes against best defense, and >> >>(2) to include that into the definition of a won game by the rules, even if it >>needs more than 50 moves without pawn move or capture. > > >So what?? If positions cannot be won under 50+ moves then it is draw?? What kind >of nonsense is that?? How long do you let the game go on? Overnight? What about the start of the _next_ round? Do the players get a rest break? If you adjudicate, do you adjudicate based on the tables, or based on human playing skill? Too many issues. Too much room for dispute and interpretation. Chess (and FIDE) listened to the _players_. They (FIDE) first started enumerating exceptions. Then the GM players started saying "wait a minute, these games can go on for hours just because one side can 'theoretically' win... and then we lose the next round because we are burned out. Stop the nonsense. Stop the exceptions." And FIDE listened and did... It _was_ the FIDE membership that demanded the exceptions be dropped. It wasn't a political decision. > > >>I support the FIDE decision to remove the exceptions. It reflects the charakter >>of chess basically being a *game*, not a scientific experiment in the first >>place (at least not when played over the board; endgame research is another >>issue). It has also practical advantages... the list of exceptions would be long >>and growing, with cases which need 200+ moves. > > >So what? To avoid long games FIDE denies the win and turns it into a draw?? This >is denying FACTS! If you cannot prove within 30minutes that the earth is not >flat, then the earth IS flat?! Sorry, this is bullshit. >Why not give the players the CHANCE to show whether they can mate in 78 or so? >The game can still end draw when after 100 moves there is still no mate. But WHO >in the world has the RIGHT to judge a WON position as DRAW just because it >cannot be won in less than 50 moves?? >I still cannot believe ANYONE defending nor understanding that absolutely not >understandable decision. > > >>mfg. >>M.Scheidl
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.