Originally posted by HabeascorpIn this case I suspect a mistake when setting up the rules. Whoever decided on the 50 move rule (probably a committee of eminent dunderheads) just missed the castling issue.
Whilst the rules are the rules are the rules, I sometimes think that the origin of why the rules are the rules is of interest - but not enough to research the point other than asking the better informed on this site?
what are you guys babbling about? 50-move rule doesn't have anything to do with 'non-repeatable' moves. it's not the 50-move-repetition rule. it's not about repetition.
the count resets on captures & pawn moves, nothing else. castling doesn't capture nor move pawns, hence it doesn't restart the count. end of story. no gray area there.
We are clear on the rule and agree the area is not grey.
Nevertheless, when the great and good sat down and decreed that a pawn move would reset the clock, why did they decide that was the case? 50 moves without any sort of capture may have been rare enough to decree a draw even without the reference to a pawn move. Did they consider castling for resetting the clock and reject it?
The rule feels illogical by excluding castling.
I sorta think folks actually disagree way waaaaaaay less than it might appear.
Methinks a big part of the time its that one party knows not what the other party is referring too.
This thread I think is such an example.
It looks like folks are disagreeing but actually they are merely talking about different things
Although not all parties necessarilly know that there is more than one thing being referred to.
Originally posted by Habeascorpit's perfectly logical if you just throw that unrelated notion of repetition out of the window.
We are clear on the rule and agree the area is not grey.
Nevertheless, when the great and good sat down and decreed that a pawn move would reset the clock, why did they decide that was the case? 50 moves without any sort of capture may have been rare enough to decree a draw even without the reference to a pawn move. Did they consider castling for resetting the clock and reject it?
The rule feels illogical by excluding castling.
the rule was deviced to stop people from playing on indefinitely until their opponent resigns. 50-move rule is about giving an upper limit for stalling. castling in the endgame isn't really doing anything. 99 times out 100 it's inferior to simply centralizing the king. it's not making progress.