Two knights endgame

[Cubeman]

Maybe the original player played Kxf5 since he was short of time and this was the best way to play.Otherwise if he lost on time Black would win!

[Jack Lad]

Excellent links - thanks a lot Ernest.

[Terry McCracken]

True or Fasle

FIDE initially changed the 50 move rule to 75 as computer databases began to reveal positions requiring more than 50 moves without capture or pawn move to win, they then discovered positions requiring >75 moves and temporarily changed the rule to 100 in these certain positions. However they have now returned to the 50 move rule in all positions.

I am sure that today the rules say 50 moves and I am sure that there was time in the past when the rules allowed 75 moves.

I do not know about temporarily changing the rule to 100 but of course I do not know everything about past decisions of fide.

Uri

Yes they did move it up as high as 100. The 50 move rule is obsolete, they should only use it in positions that can't progress. In others, they should have no move limit.

Terry

I don't agree. I listened to the GM players as this was debated many years ago. It has several bad effects.

(1) screws up tournaments. Do you adjourn after 6 hours? How do you pair the next round. What if your pairing assumption turns out to be wrong? Etc.

(2) tough on humans. Do you really want to start at 8pm, and play all night and then have to be ready for the next round at 8am?

(3) what if your opponent has no idea how to win, but stretches it on and on hoping either you make a mistake or he stumbles into a win? I once watched a KQ vs KR go on and on and on because the winning side didn't know how to win, but would not accept the draw to end the game.

For the most part, the 50 move rule is really the best way to handle such positions...

Maybe, but who cares what patzers play?

Why is this such a big concern for grandmasters?

Move it to 75 or 100 moves for players over 2500.

[LJC]

test

[bob]

True or Fasle

FIDE initially changed the 50 move rule to 75 as computer databases began to reveal positions requiring more than 50 moves without capture or pawn move to win, they then discovered positions requiring >75 moves and temporarily changed the rule to 100 in these certain positions. However they have now returned to the 50 move rule in all positions.

I am sure that today the rules say 50 moves and I am sure that there was time in the past when the rules allowed 75 moves.

I do not know about temporarily changing the rule to 100 but of course I do not know everything about past decisions of fide.

Uri

Yes they did move it up as high as 100. The 50 move rule is obsolete, they should only use it in positions that can't progress. In others, they should have no move limit.

Terry

I don't agree. I listened to the GM players as this was debated many years ago. It has several bad effects.

(1) screws up tournaments. Do you adjourn after 6 hours? How do you pair the next round. What if your pairing assumption turns out to be wrong? Etc.

(2) tough on humans. Do you really want to start at 8pm, and play all night and then have to be ready for the next round at 8am?

(3) what if your opponent has no idea how to win, but stretches it on and on hoping either you make a mistake or he stumbles into a win? I once watched a KQ vs KR go on and on and on because the winning side didn't know how to win, but would not accept the draw to end the game.

For the most part, the 50 move rule is really the best way to handle such positions...

Maybe, but who cares what patzers play?

Why is this such a big concern for grandmasters?

Move it to 75 or 100 moves for players over 2500.

Did you read my comments? This decision was _made_ by grandmasters, not by patzers. They didn't want unbounded games, or games that could go way beyond the 50 move rule. The general consensus was "OK, even if it is winning, if it takes more than 50 moves without a capture or pawn move, let's call it a draw and get the round over in a reasonable length of time."

Makes sense to me to listen to the top players of the game...

[Terry McCracken]

True or Fasle

FIDE initially changed the 50 move rule to 75 as computer databases began to reveal positions requiring more than 50 moves without capture or pawn move to win, they then discovered positions requiring >75 moves and temporarily changed the rule to 100 in these certain positions. However they have now returned to the 50 move rule in all positions.

I am sure that today the rules say 50 moves and I am sure that there was time in the past when the rules allowed 75 moves.

I do not know about temporarily changing the rule to 100 but of course I do not know everything about past decisions of fide.

Uri

Yes they did move it up as high as 100. The 50 move rule is obsolete, they should only use it in positions that can't progress. In others, they should have no move limit.

Terry

I don't agree. I listened to the GM players as this was debated many years ago. It has several bad effects.

(1) screws up tournaments. Do you adjourn after 6 hours? How do you pair the next round. What if your pairing assumption turns out to be wrong? Etc.

(2) tough on humans. Do you really want to start at 8pm, and play all night and then have to be ready for the next round at 8am?

(3) what if your opponent has no idea how to win, but stretches it on and on hoping either you make a mistake or he stumbles into a win? I once watched a KQ vs KR go on and on and on because the winning side didn't know how to win, but would not accept the draw to end the game.

For the most part, the 50 move rule is really the best way to handle such positions...

Maybe, but who cares what patzers play?

Why is this such a big concern for grandmasters?

Move it to 75 or 100 moves for players over 2500.

Did you read my comments? This decision was _made_ by grandmasters, not by patzers. They didn't want unbounded games, or games that could go way beyond the 50 move rule. The general consensus was "OK, even if it is winning, if it takes more than 50 moves without a capture or pawn move, let's call it a draw and get the round over in a reasonable length of time."

Makes sense to me to listen to the top players of the game...

The only reason for this is to avoid delays....yes Robert I read your report!

At least move to 75...I thought that wasn't asking too much, but majority rules....

[bob]

True or Fasle

FIDE initially changed the 50 move rule to 75 as computer databases began to reveal positions requiring more than 50 moves without capture or pawn move to win, they then discovered positions requiring >75 moves and temporarily changed the rule to 100 in these certain positions. However they have now returned to the 50 move rule in all positions.

I am sure that today the rules say 50 moves and I am sure that there was time in the past when the rules allowed 75 moves.

I do not know about temporarily changing the rule to 100 but of course I do not know everything about past decisions of fide.

Uri

Yes they did move it up as high as 100. The 50 move rule is obsolete, they should only use it in positions that can't progress. In others, they should have no move limit.

Terry

I don't agree. I listened to the GM players as this was debated many years ago. It has several bad effects.

(1) screws up tournaments. Do you adjourn after 6 hours? How do you pair the next round. What if your pairing assumption turns out to be wrong? Etc.

(2) tough on humans. Do you really want to start at 8pm, and play all night and then have to be ready for the next round at 8am?

(3) what if your opponent has no idea how to win, but stretches it on and on hoping either you make a mistake or he stumbles into a win? I once watched a KQ vs KR go on and on and on because the winning side didn't know how to win, but would not accept the draw to end the game.

For the most part, the 50 move rule is really the best way to handle such positions...

Maybe, but who cares what patzers play?

Why is this such a big concern for grandmasters?

Move it to 75 or 100 moves for players over 2500.

Did you read my comments? This decision was _made_ by grandmasters, not by patzers. They didn't want unbounded games, or games that could go way beyond the 50 move rule. The general consensus was "OK, even if it is winning, if it takes more than 50 moves without a capture or pawn move, let's call it a draw and get the round over in a reasonable length of time."

Makes sense to me to listen to the top players of the game...

The only reason for this is to avoid delays....yes Robert I read your report!

At least move to 75...I thought that wasn't asking too much, but majority rules....

Note that this was in the day where most GM-level tournaments were played at a time control of 40 moves in 2.5 hours. If everyone used action-style sudden death time controls, this rule would be pointless since a tournament game would then have a finite length even without any 50 move rule.

Perhaps it will change as time controls become uniformly game in N minutes with no increment or secondary time control.

[Jack Lad]

It is interesting to note that the 50 move rule actually makes the win longer to achieve in this case.

[bob]

It is interesting to note that the 50 move rule actually makes the win longer to achieve in this case.

That's true in a lot of cases. Although I am not sure humans can cope with that and play them correctly.