Author: KarinsDad
Date: 09:15:27 08/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 06, 1999 at 06:18:39, Owen Lyne wrote: >On August 05, 1999 at 18:27:41, KarinsDad wrote: > >>And, the rule should be removed for human play as well since we already have a >>thing called a clock (i.e. I have never understood why playing all of your moves >>in x amount of time is such a problem for people), but I won't go further there. >> >>KarinsDad :) > >I disagree there. For example, you are the defending side in a tough endgame and >your opponent doesn't have a clue how to make progress. The 50 move rule allows >the game to end without him flailing away at you forever (or at least, until you >can prove a triple repetition, which could take hundreds of moves). Perticularly >if there is an increment on the clock or something like an hour for each >subsequent 24 moves, the clock isn't going to stop the game, so you need some >other way to save pointless playing on. > >Owen Sorry, I agree with you. I must have been zoning yesterday when I wrote that. I do have a problem with increments on clocks in tournament games (I think it is perfectly fine to force a person to make all of his moves within a set time frame as opposed to a variable time frame), but I do not have a problem with the 50 move rule. KarinsDad :)
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.