In Timman-Velimirovic, played without the help of computers, white had a "winning" KRPvKBP position but had to struggle against the 50-move rule to convert it (in which he finally succeeded). I don't believe anyone at that time seriously suggested that white should get its "well-deserved" point without playing out the position. Or that the 50-move rule should be somehow changed so that such endings in the future would not be influenced by the 50-move rule.Evert wrote:So you say.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote: when you know there is mate in 80 not involving any pushes/captures, you should give the engine 80 moves' time to deliver that mate, otherwise you are acting unjust to the engine, and chess in general as well.
Yet you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate why that would be so.
I'll ask you again: how is it more unjust to be deprived of a win than to be deprived of a draw?
Being efficient with your (fifty) moves is just part of the game. If the opponent can delay you enough, he gets a well-deserved draw. Just like a player can lose a pawn but still draw the game. (But I have a proposal: when the game reaches a position with 7 pieces/pawns on the board, the side having more pieces immediately wins. This gets rids of all TB draws and gives excellent compression of 7-piece TBs.)