Author: Les Fernandez
Date: 00:19:16 01/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2003 at 02:11:04, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On January 08, 2003 at 01:39:51, Les Fernandez wrote: > >>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. >> >>I am not sure I agree with that. > > >There is nothing in what I said above that you can viably disagree with me >with. I'm just relating the rules as they are. Whether you like the rules is >another issue. As far as you relating the rules I can understand your position. > > >The 50 move rule was created some time ago to >>make sure a game could not go on forever. As time goes on and deeper analyses >>take place we see that there is alot more oppurtunity to winning/drawing games >>then what was previously thought of. Is it fair if there exists a person who >>can truly remember a 243 move sequence (granted not many) and gets into that >>position is it fair to deny him the win? I think not and therefore I think that >>in the case where a person or computer can announce a position which is a >>guaranteed mate the 50 move rule should be eliminated. As I continue to study >>the egtb's more and more mate positions which require >50 moves is increasing. >> >>Les > > >I don't agree. The way the rules are now is what I prefer. As for fair, of >course it is fair. The rules apply equally to everyone. Besides, a 300 move game What you prefer is a different story just as what I prefer. It makes no difference that the rules apply to everyone. My point was that their are a few people that are certainly in a position to remember some of these long mate sequences. Granted not many but should we prevent a person or chess engine to "settle" for a draw if a win is in fact guaranteed? By no means. What makes a GM player better then the other alot of times is his ability not only to understand things positionally but also the depth along with recall of most games that he/she has played. As an example some players may find 25 moves with no capture boring so why not have made a 25 move limit? You are fine with 50 moves and some others may be fine with no move limit. The fact of the matter is that chess is a very complex game as we all can attest to and why prevent someone a victory if in fact they can achieve a mate? If a person was able to remember all these long lines that have been generated till now it wouldnt be fair to force him to accept a draw even though he can prove that he has reduced his position to one that is now guaranteed to lead to mate. >is a torturous marathon that would exhaust the players and not be at all >interesting to watch. Such endings are rare, but when they do arise and >exceptions are allowed, it can cause significant practical problems. Torturous yes but those are the breaks as it has always been in this game. Whoever is better given all the variables should come out on top. > >I remember that before the current rules were implemented, Karpov, who is >certainly an endgame expert, was one of the players who objected to 50 move rule >exceptions. Has nothing to do with my points. If Karpov knew these long extensions and found out that it has generated wins from him time to time he just might have second thouhts. > >As for the occasional player who actually expends the effort to learn how to >play such endings, a draw is just punishment for spending so much time on >something so impractical IMO. > See above > >> >>> >>> >>>>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.