@janosopeligroso Oh but you do agree to it, every time you play a game of chess with someone because those are the rules that govern the game of chess.
You may not like the rule but not liking something does not mean you didn't agree to it.
Having said that I think extending it to 100 is a good idea too, my post was more directed @ EndgameTactics because his reasons for extending it are ridiculous.
eg #3 "Players have the right to try to win without unnecessary pressure from a move limit."
Lol, no changing chess rules so that you can have longer to attempt a checkmate is not a human right. It's funny these days how some people think just about everything is a fundamental right. Chess is a game. That's all.
#1 Oh boy... I agree, a player who plays the best tablebase move every move deserves a win (they're certainly making progress). IMHO ideally when a capture occurs, the N-move rule would be based on a tablebase lookup & the maximum of (50, DTZ, DTM) would determine the applicable move rule. But I can't imagine anyone agreeing with me on this.
#12 I agree, FIDE manipulated their rules and from a practical perspective no game outcomes have changed.
Pawn(move)less endgames are relatively rare. I am in the business for 30 years and the only reason I see is that poor technique is encouraged. Because you can try forever. You cannot compare with tbˋs - humans attack and defend by far weaker.
I suggest to shorten it for certain endgames, say 20 moves for KQ (KR) vs K. :D
Summa summarum: I watched million of games and must conclude that 50 is rather too much in the majority of cases. Poor players repeat endlessly their bad technique without making progress. An educated guess: 50 is a good compromise that will last forever. ;-)
#13
Every chess game ends in a finite number of moves even if there is no such rule as the 50 move rule.
Just by virtue of the number of legal positions being finite, you can only make finite number of moves before repeating a position 3 ( 5 or whatever ) times.
The draw by threefold ( whatever-fold ) repetition rule is enough to guarantee that a chess game ends in finite number of moves.
( Yes, the number of legal positions is astronomical, around 10^43, so this is a theoretical argument only, but still, it is a valid argument. )
#23 Ha, that (20 moves for K+Q versus K; 30 for K+R versus K) is something I could support as it would make games more exciting. :-D
Proposed new rules:
1. If a player misses a mate in 1 the opponent is given the opportunity to declare a draw.
2. If all pawns remain with all pieces captured, the game is a draw.
3. If the King has occupied every square at least once, the game is a draw.
4. If the player with 3 Queens does not mate in <10 moves, the game is a draw.
We can always do with more rules! (Not really)
Don't forget this one!
5. All rook endgames are drawn.
6. When 50 moves are reached, a tablebase lookup is performed and the result shown to both players. Either player may opt to have the tablebases play out the rest of their moves, at the cost of forfeiting the right to earn more than half a point from the game.
Some rule-changing „improvements“ remind me of working on a chess problem: you add a detail to install an nice additional feature - and you’ll lose half of all the included important main ideas.
No, one doesn’t have to lose the overview of the overall impact in the majority of all cases. The whole picture can be spoiled easily.
Maybe each time the attacker makes progress, the clock could alarm, "CHECKPOINT!" and add time?
