#59 There's a difference between a player being given an opportunity to win and squandering it, versus being stripped of that opportunity. I have never seen a game where human players played the tablebase moves resulting in a draw in an otherwise won position.
Just because a player hasn't won K+B/N versus K+any doesn't mean they should be deprived of their 50-move opportunity to do so.
There are many completely winning positions where a clearly winning player has gone out of their way to selfmate or lose over a lengthy series of moves. I've lost OTB tournament games in this fashion, and many opponents return the favor; but my own games are insignificant. Although generally K+B/N versus K+P is only lost if the opponent underpromotes, the same can't be said of any other K+B/N versus K+P+any.
And Sarg0n is right, if you start to define single cases as drawn you open an immense can of worms; USCF has been selling rulebooks for decades and with each revision still fails to address problems such as in #12 (dead position) or #60 (mate in 1 denied).
The whole point of USCF's ILC rule (as opposed to their "sufficient mating material" rule for claiming a time win) is that it's supposed to apply to positions where the result is self-evident, for example K+P versus a full army, with the pawn blockaded and mate imminent should not be a win for the K+P. Ditto for K+P (a-pawn) with the opposing king blockading the pawn, or K+R versus K+R (in most positions), etc. which are far more likely to occur in time pressure (and be unable to liquify into a forced draw) than K+B/N versus K+P is. How can K+P versus a full army, with the pawn blockaded and mate imminent (or similar positions covered by USCF's ILC rule) be declared lost (where a draw or better is self-evident), but positions where K+B/N has winning chances be declared drawn (even including positions where it is likely for a player to fall into a mate, or a forced mate exists)?
@Toadofsky it's not particularly productive to completely ignore the contradiction in your logic and just repeat yourself. There are forced mates, with no capture or exchange, that go beyond 500 moves. Does this mean we should change the 50 move rule to be the 500 move rule? If you were going to be logically consistent, the answer would be yes. But you're not being logically consistent. Nobody who supports this rule, thus far, has shown any semblance of consistent logic in that support.
And again for some perspective I implore you to consider the person(s) on chess.com that continue to advocate for player notes, insisting that they're the best thing ever. Perhaps its pride, perhaps its ideology. Whatever the reason, people end up supporting ideas that do nothing but hurt their respective sites when I think that's what nobody really wants.
@OhNoMyPants You make a good point.
Once again: in any game or any sports, if you cannot meet the rules (resign, time-out, illness, forfeit) the most basic of all rules is to award the opponent with the maximum of “points“ which is possible for him a that time. He has to prove nothing, it is the very basis of fairness. He is not guilty and it is fair to compensate him completely.
If you drop your cards in a card game the opponent wins them all, no matter how unlikely this course would be otherwise. The worst case is assumed, for example when playing cards.
Sorry, not that easy for a non-native to explain. Hope you got what the basis of competition is. There‘s nothing like „probability“ - erase this probability argument out of your brain.
RULES! We don’t talk about probabilities! Got it!?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.