Hello, In the current chessrules there is the statement that if there is no capture or pawn move in 50 sequent moves then a draw may be claimed. However I vaguely remember the exception that for certain endgames (ex K+R vs K+B+R) it is allowed to do 100 moves for a draw may be claimed. I cannot find this in the current rules. But does anyone which rule I am talking about and when it was active?
Originally posted by MetBierOpFAQ
Hello, In the current chessrules there is the statement that if there is no capture or pawn move in 50 sequent moves then a draw may be claimed. However I vaguely remember the exception that for certain endgames (ex K+R vs K+B+R) it is allowed to do 100 moves for a draw may be claimed. I cannot find this in the current rules. But does anyone which rule I am talking about and when it was active?
Originally posted by MetBierOpI can't find any mention of the 100 limit, but 75 moves is mentioned here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt14.txt
"Answer: In the FIDE Laws of Chess, published in 1984 and 1988,
you will find that the 50-move rule is extended to 75 moves for the
following positions:
(a) King + Rook + Bishop against King + Rook; (b) King + 2
Knights against King + pawn; (c) King + Queen + pawn one square
from promotion against King + Queen; (d) King + Queen against
King + 2 Knights; (e) King + Queen against King + 2 Bishops; and
(f) King + 2 Bishops against King + Knight
In 1992 during the FIDE Congress in Manila the Rules Committee
suggested establishing one rule for all endings: 50 moves. The
General Assembly of FIDE approved this. The same happened in
1996 during the congress in Yerevan."
Originally posted by VarenkaThis must be it! Thanks, my memory was a bit blurry on it 😀. It must have been 75. Thx!
I can't find any mention of the 100 limit, but 75 moves is mentioned here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt14.txt
"Answer: In the FIDE Laws of Chess, published in 1984 and 1988,
you will find that the 50-move rule is extended to 75 moves for the
following positions:
(a) King + Rook + Bishop against King + Rook; (b) King + 2
Knights against Kin ...[text shortened]... l Assembly of FIDE approved this. The same happened in
1996 during the congress in Yerevan."
Originally posted by MetBierOpThe rule has been repealed by FIDE. It is now only 50 moves, no exceptions!
Hello, In the current chessrules there is the statement that if there is no capture or pawn move in 50 sequent moves then a draw may be claimed. However I vaguely remember the exception that for certain endgames (ex K+R vs K+B+R) it is allowed to do 100 moves for a draw may be claimed. I cannot find this in the current rules. But does anyone which rule I am talking about and when it was active?
Originally posted by MetBierOpThe rules extended the number of moves for certain combinations of pieces where a win was possible but in more than 50 moves. The best known is N & 2N vs K & P (where the P is behind a certain line) but with the advent of ever more powerful computers and tablebases the number of exceptions increased dramatically. For example some positions with forced wins in more than 400 moves have now been shown to be possible.
I understand. Just wanted to know what the rules were
Because it was impossible to define all the exceptions (I believe) the rule was repealed and it is now a straight 50 moves again as you will see in the current rules of chess on the FIDE web site.
Originally posted by Dragon FireInteresting. Do you happen to have one of these forced win combinations. Especially the 400+
The rules extended the number of moves for certain combinations of pieces where a win was possible but in more than 50 moves. The best known is N & 2N vs K & P (where the P is behind a certain line) but with the advent of ever more powerful computers and tablebases the number of exceptions increased dramatically. For example some positions with forced wi ...[text shortened]... ow a straight 50 moves again as you will see in the current rules of chess on the FIDE web site.
Originally posted by MetBierOpThread 52312
Interesting. Do you happen to have one of these forced win combinations. Especially the 400+
I must say I thought it was a better system when you had the exceptions. The point of the 50 move rule is to call a halt when it is clear that neither side is making any progress. In these exceptional positions, that won't be true. It seems wrong to me that you can get to a position with a forced mate, play perfectly, and still draw because the forced mate takes more than 50 moves.
With a bit of imagination, I reckon you could design a better rule for tournament play. Here's a suggestion: after any capture or pawn move, when material is below a defined threshold (say, no more than one pawn and 4 pieces between you) a player who thinks he has a winnable position which will take a lot of moves can request the arbiter to set a move limit. The arbiter does so by consulting a tablebase (with discretion not to if he thinks you are wasting his time), following which he sets a move limit equal to the lower of 50 moves and the quickest forced win plus (say) 50%. The extra 50% means that to win you don't have to play like a computer, but you do have to make progress at a reasonable rate and basically get the winning plan pretty early in the process.
Do you think this would be practical? I reckon it would only arise occasionally, so it would be a minor disturbance. Most tournament organisers have a computer switched on for the pairings, and the tablebases are all on the internet.
since FIDE reconformation of 50 move rule for 'all positions'there are now no exceptions to this rule under any circumstances whatsoever. It may be considered unfair in specific and individual game positions however the need to compel the ending of games in particular rated tournament games,within a reasonable amount of time so that such tournaments may progress to conclusion,must be considered of primary importance for purely practical reasons. The actual number of games in terms of percentages where this rule may appear unfair to some players is so small in reality,that it is unreasonable to be overly concerned, as almost all drawn games are drawn by mutual agreement and not by other means. If a player is unable to force a win within the '50 move rule' but is able to do so outside of this rule then perhaps such players may wish to consider seeking alternative methods of doing so, thereby proving that the game is winnable within a reasonable number of moves and time-scale?