Originally posted by Chorneyyou can play even 400 moves... if none of U 2 offers a draw, the other one can naver accept the draw...
What if he has a king and a horse and i have a king. Nither of us can win. Do i have to wait for 50 moves till it ends.
you always can OFFER a draw, the opponent can then accpet it.
what is the 50 moves rule for then?
you move around and you opponet never accepts your draw offers (as in the situation you described), after 50 non pawns moves and captures you can CLAIM the draw. it is not neccasary to offer the draw.
here at RHP this is not possible directly. contact russ (message, feedback, ...) and tell him the game id.
okay?
th
Originally posted by ChorneyThere is a provision in the Laws of Chess for a draw in such a case*. A message to Russ (as suggested by Thire) should secure the draw, although I can't imagine any player being unwilling to agree a draw with K+N vs K.
What if he has a king and a horse and i have a king. Nither of us can win. Do i have to wait for 50 moves till it ends.
*Article 1.3 states 'If the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate, the game is drawn.' and Article 5.2b reiterates.
There is an exception to the 50 move rule: when an ending is known to be a win, a player is allowed twice the number of moves it should take him with best play. (i.e. king/bishop/knight vs king is a win with 34 moves of best play, therefore player is allowed 68 moves to effect checkmate--otherwise a draw can be claimed.)
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by Al GreenThis is wrong. It's 50 moves, without exceptions.
There is an exception to the 50 move rule: when an ending is known to be a win, a player is allowed twice the number of moves it should take him with best play. (i.e. king/bishop/knight vs king is a win with 34 moves of best play, therefore player is allowed 68 moves to effect checkmate--otherwise a draw can be claimed.)
Originally posted by Al GreenWas the book Chess Made Simple? If so, that's probably where I read it, too.
OK, Sorry, and thanks for the update. I was reading a book published by Milton Hanauer, M.S., J.D. in 1957 (Then director of NYC Interscholastic Chess League, former N.Y. State Champion and member U.S. International Team.)
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by Al GreenYes - It was a silly rule because chess theorists then decided it was great fun to find loads of obscure combinations of pieces that would lead to a win in huge numbers of moves.
OK, Sorry, and thanks for the update. I was reading a book published by Milton Hanauer, M.S., J.D. in 1957 (Then director of NYC Interscholastic Chess League, former N.Y. State Champion and member U.S. International Team.)
All these obscure combinations, and the max moves, had to be listed somewhere so tournament directors could refer to them and the list had to be updated constantly, driving everyone mad.
Also it made games with those combinations of pieces really long and boring as the players had to make loads of moves, and didn't want to agree a draw to a theoretically won game, but unless they were chess theorists, they had no chance of finding the winning moves.
It could also be argued that (as players had to be told what their max moves were) they would then get have extra information about their winning chances, so the rule would affect their play.
All in all - a fine example of the principle that things are always more complicated than you think.