- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by zakkwylderWell, duh. If you move 1. f3 2. g4, you're doing it wrong, too, but the fool's mate is still legal.
In my opinion, if you've gotten to the point where the 50 move rule could come into play and you haven't moved your king and/or rooks...
You're doing it wrong.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by SwissGambitNevertheless, that is the reasoning behind the 50-move rule, and it is valid in nearly all situations. I posit that this reasoning ought, logically, to be extended to include castle-invalidating moves.
Here's one nit-pick: a capture is no guarantee that progress is being made.
Richard
20 Jul 11
2 edits
The rule is no capture or a pawn move after 50 moves.
Castling is neither a capture or a pawn move.
A good point though as castling cannot be undone, though of course
after 0-0 you can move the King back e1 and the Rook to h1.
(and castle again! - there are a few examples of illegal castling taking
place three times in a game.)
I guess they never thought about the 50 move rule and castling because
the chances of it ever happening are (every recorded game to date - 1)
It has not happened yet in about 10 million games and I doubt if it
will in another 10 million.
The current record for the latest castling in an OTB game in on move 48.
(on RHP the latest I can find is on move 44 for both 0-0 and 0-0-0.)
The castling rules applies in 3 fold rep.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by greenerpawnI think there were enough exceptions discovered that it became impractical to keep track of them all. Of the exceptional cases, only computers can play them well enough anyhow. I can see why FIDE went back to the old 50-move standard.
Yes, I see.
Widening the debate, are there any situations where computers have now shown that a win is possible in some specific endings where more than 50 moves are required?
If so, should not the 50 move rule be amended to, say, an 80 move rule for that particular ending?
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhat?!?! Then its mate?
Here's one nit-pick: a capture is no guarantee that progress is being made.
In fact, there are some captures that are not legal specifically because no progress is being made.
[fen]8/1k6/8/p1p1p1p1/P1P1P1P1/8/2B5/qK6 w - - 0 1[/fen]
White is not permitted to play 1.Kxa1 here. The position is an immediate draw because of a FIDE rule that states t ...[text shortened]... st unskilled counterplay. This position meets the criteria before the Queen is captured.
Surely its a draw when king x queen and not before?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by Shallow BlueHas anyone authoritative published the reasoning that's behind the 50 move rule? There may be a rationale that we rational folks impute to it, but it if there is/was such authoritative reasoning, I think there would be documentation. Otherwise we might as well take the reasons for terminating the count to 50 as arbitrary.
Nevertheless, that is the reasoning behind the 50-move rule, and it is valid in nearly all situations. I posit that this reasoning ought, logically, to be extended to include castle-invalidating moves.
Richard
One alternative rationale for the two ways of terminating the count to 50 is that together they will (I think) eventually clear the board of material (even if adding pieces via promotion) to establish a clear outcome (win or draw) so in that sense there is progress. Castle-invalidation moves do not necessarily do that.
Reportedly Ruy Lopez introduced the rule in his 1561 book (Wikipedia). Maybe the reasoning is there? Was castling an established move as he played the game?
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357Players used to castle by hand.Castling was introduced to speed up the game.
Has anyone authoritative published the reasoning that's behind the 50 move rule? There may be a rationale that we rational folks impute to it, but it if there is/was such authoritative reasoning, I think there would be documentation. Otherwise we might as well take the reasons for terminating the count to 50 as arbitrary.
One alternative rationale for the t ...[text shortened]... kipedia). Maybe the reasoning is there? Was castling an established move as he played the game?
The 50 move rule is to prevent people playing on forever.In this matter 'progress' is indeed to be seen as progressing towards the end,not as one side progressing towards an advantage.
That's how I understand it anyway,but I hold no chessauthority.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357The selected move count of 50 does seem arbitrary. It seems that 40 or 60 would do also?
Has anyone authoritative published the reasoning that's behind the 50 move rule? There may be a rationale that we rational folks impute to it, but it if there is/was such authoritative reasoning, I think there would be documentation. Otherwise we might as well take the reasons for terminating the count to 50 as arbitrary.
One alternative rationale for the t ...[text shortened]... kipedia). Maybe the reasoning is there? Was castling an established move as he played the game?
22 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by moon1969There's logic behind it.
The selected move count of 50 does seem arbitrary. It seems that 40 or 60 would do also?
For example the ending K+B+N vs K can take +-35 moves to win.One minor slip and it's over 40.
So to allow the attacker some wriggling room,but not too much,50 moves were agreed.