Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 17:48:19 01/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2003 at 20:40:11, Marc Bourzutschky wrote: >The 50-move rule is irrelevant to endgame studies, which is what this is about. I seriously doubt if anyone is ever going to expend the effort to actually understand the ending you gave. BTW, since the analysis you gave is based on a DTM (=Distance To Mate) EGTB, we don't really know if it is drawn due to the 50-move rule or not. > >On January 07, 2003 at 20:29:07, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On January 07, 2003 at 20:14:11, Edward Seid wrote: >> >>>On January 07, 2003 at 19:45:04, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>What's subtle about it? Black draws easily thanks to the 50-move rule rendering >>>>most of this analysis as irrelevant. >>> >>>The 50-move rule was created by tournament directors and organizers to address >>>practical tournament play, before computer use was widespread. After computer >>>analysis proved that some endings could still be won but would take longer than >>>50-moves, certain special case endings were allowed to extend beyond 50 moves in >>>tournament play. >> >> >>All the special cases were eliminated in the lastest version of the 50 move >>rule. You must mate within 50 moves now or it is a draw. An exception is only >>made when the organizer declares before the event which type of positions are >>excepted, but nobody ever does this. Such positions are too rare to bother with. >> >> >>>The current analysis shows that in the case of KRRPKQ, with perfect play from >>>both sides, that the superior side could take MUCH LONGER than 50 moves. >>> >>>So I disagree with you when you say that a forced winning line is irrelevant >>>because of a rule that humans created to expedite human tournament play.
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.