Author: Harald Faber
Date: 23:54:06 05/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2002 at 17:10:16, Mike S. wrote: >On May 30, 2002 at 14:32:25, Harald Faber wrote: > >>(...) 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. > >It isn't the *position* which is judged as a draw, it's the *game*. The position >may contain a forceable mate in 87 moves. But - by definition - that chess game >can't be won due to the 50 moves rule, against best defense. > >It is a matter of definition (like: stalemate = draw). You could say, if it >needs more than 50 moves without pawn move or capture, it just isn't "won >enough" to score as a win. The rule reflects the tradition of chess as a game >(for humans, in the first place). > >We should also keep in mind that there are *very* long winning squences still >possible, if they *do* contain pawn moves or captures then and when... > >Regards, >M.Scheidl And? Who says that after 50 moves without catching a piece or making a pawn move the game is draw? Long long ago this might have been right. New researches should lay this 50 move rule ad acta. Can you tell me why exactly 50 moves? Why not 60? 40? 20? What is the reason for *50*? Who decided that, based on what? I still see no justification for a 50 move rule.
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.