Black: “Finally! After all of this dancing around, you can’t delay the inevitable any longer. I’m going to take your pawn and win the game, and there’s nothing you can do to stop me.” White: *looks at board* “Well, it’s clear neither of us has been able to make any progress here, so I guess it’s a draw.”
It's simply a rule. Rules make the game. And people play according to them... Similarly how not being able to move gives you a draw even though the enemy has a queen knight and bishop and you blundered all your pieces! Similar how you LOSE the game when you have all pieces, your enemy almost none, but your time got to 0:00! You'd be as shocked about those. I don't see why to be so girly about the video rather than appreciating the accomplishment and deed. It's simply been applied very rarely. Such as in the bishop+knight mate, where you need to look out for your number of turns not making a mistake in order to not reach the 50 treshhold, too. It's strategy to get the enemy into these pits, also like time management and stalling. Draw is a strategy, believe it or not, and while it might not always be perfectly calculated in advance and quite close, chess is also about making the best out of a situation, and intuition, on both sides. There could be other situations, where neither one wants to take a piece cause it would put him in a worse spot, so they dance around and try to slowly improve their position... perhaps after close to 50 moves one got better, but it counts as a draw when the position was that strong for both that neither would overwhelm the other one early enough to take a piece. (cause they don't want to risk to lose) Also, there are forced 60 or 80 mate patterns found by computers that you won't see in pratice, it counts as draw it's the game. (and yea extremely rare). And on a side note 50 is really really much. And there could be the rule 55 and one game would take 57 "empty" turns in theory before any piece is taken, and we would end up at the same spot. TBH I think the stalemate (one player can't move) rule is much more extreme than the both sides not doing any game changing moves for 50 turns! But we are so used to it, cause it's seen more often, that people are naturally cheeky about it when achieving a draw that way, even though they might have been clearly worse. (Of course, always, there are many well played stalemates of course, such as chess vibes shows some in his puzzles or other videos). Just to summarize the video and strength of the players: If you let white built up a huge threat of getting a queen himself, and you needing to dance around it (almost like queen vs queen endgame), ... while letting him having stopped your black king from taking the quick path with the pawn on b5, ... while letting him having build up that huge wall all protected preventing black to take anything and build a 2nd queen and also forming that long extra path, you weren't better than white as per no-infinite-game rule. Or rather said: Black was *not better enough* (because there is only win, draw or lose, no score). It's that simple. Draw was really very good, or how else do you describe that even strength better than with "draw"? Win-lose? No that's unfair more so you could say it would be a too on-sided score, 50 empty turns was reached. Black was not better enough . But that's why there is several games between players. In the end, this one's one legendary game, and well played by white really. (and surely on both sides). And really the threat of getting a queen was just as strong in this position with the King almost in prison. It's as beautiful as forcing underpromotions and other rules and forced draws giving these nice games or positions chess vibes presents to us so well. And FYI most games chess vibes presents to us, are always about that 1 single move ahead of what you need, or that one extra momentum you somehow managed to find! (here the antimomentum haha) ... that close exciting match. That's why we watch it! If this game was 53 empty turns instead of 50 we wouldn't have this video! (or, if the rule was max of 45 turns instead!!) Mind blown. 😲 I hope you can see it from a new perspective now. Otherwise I wish you find more beauty in chess in the future. Take care.
@@alexanderxyz6146 This is why I think you should be technically allowed to move your king into check. Of course, if the king ever gets captured, you lose.
That is crazy! The reason for the rule is to resolve games that are making no progress. This game WAS progressing, but a lawyer found a technicality to avoid losing like a chess player.
Having found this study, I wish they would adjust the rules to 55 move limit. Of course this exact scenario will never happen in a real game, but maybe something similar that we haven't found yet?
@@IdeaSlug i would say if their is a clear progression at that point (like in this situation where clearly something happend the past 50 moves that gave someone a winning posision) the rule just shouldnt count cuzz its just dodging a loss by abusing the rule
@@Jivvi i mean ig that works still tho its kind of a sad way to draw if u were 1 play away from winning Like if its still an other 30 moves till u are winning it would be differend
Yes, but ask all chess players including NM Lopez, who has started playing chess and never made a blunder? We all started by making many many blunders, the question is when will you learn enough NOT to make any blunders? Continue playing and the more you play the more you start to recognize patterns and less blunders will come naturally!
@@ChessInstructorSF You have to be bad before you can be good. I keep having to remind myself of this, because I think fear of screwing up keeps me from trying lots of new things that really don't have as much gravity as I think they do. Literally nothing bad happens if you're a chess newbie and you lose a game.
I've seen an even crazier one. The rules at some point (1970's?) stated you were in check when your king was under attack by one or two of the opponents pieces. Obviously you were not allowed to make a move that put yourself in check (as now). The puzzle construction was such that the opponent moved one piece to check your king and also revealed a second check from another piece. The solution to the puzzle was to move one of your pawns revealing a third attack on your king but delivering checkmate with your pawn on the opposing king. The move was legal because by revealing the third piece attacking your king you were making a move which did not leave you in check, since check was only when you were attacked by one or two pieces, not three.
That feels absurd. For one thing, if your king is under attack by more than two pieces, your king is also under attack by "one or two pieces" - unless the rules specified "exactly one or two pieces." For another, I find it hard to believe that chess rules ever permitted a player in check to make a move that didn't escape the check. This is rules lawyering at its finest!
@@DrewLevitt Dems were the rules. It was a pretty contrived situation to take advantage of it, so almost certainly wouldn't ever have happened in a real game, but still needed correcting. In terms of the terminology if they had said the king is in check when under attack by one piece of the opponent then you would maybe assume that means one or more, but when they specifically said one or two pieces, it implies you aren't extrapolating to 'or more' pieces because in that case saying two was redundant.
@@DrewLevitt Anyway everyone knows chess puzzle setters love a bit of rules lawyering to trick the unwary. Saw another beautiful puzzle with I think king and rook vs king rook and pawn. The solution relied on the fact that even though you only have the king and rook left on the board, by convention if castling hasn't been specifically ruled out and the pieces are on the correct starting squares then you must assume neither the rook or king has been moved at any point and castling is still allowed!
Amazing. It's worth pointing out that black can never reset the 50-move counter by capturing one of white's other pawns or pieces because they are all protected. Any capture would result in black losing their queen and the game. If any of white's pieces were hanging, black could try to grab it (and reset the counter) when white's king is in front of the bishop pawn.
10:20 Imagine getting this in a game and your opponent actually gets a draw, while you have to look at a board where you can play Qf8# and it's your turn but there's nothing you can do about it.
@@erickpoorbaugh6728 then what if white promotes his pawn to a knight instead ? that puts black's king in check, black has to take with the queen and lose the queen if he wants to prevent the 50 move rule but that would just be white's win.
@@Twas-RightHere This is not correct. It has to be your (!) turn when claiming a draw. Then you have the following options: claim that white and black has made that 50 moves. Or declaring you make a move like Ke8 and writing it down. (That move complete the 50 moves.) Once you moved and black makes a capture (or a mate) the chance has gone.
Some additional sidelines: Instead of Qg7 on move 50, Black could play Qe6 Kf8 Kf6 and then White claims a draw after Kg8. Or Black’s move 50 is Qd6 Ke8 Ke6, now the only move that saves White is Nc2 with the same claim. Btw Nc2 would work as an alternative move 52 in the other lines as well.
Using the rules to your advantage is a major part of chess. I'm impressed that white realised by sweating it out he could claim a draw, which would have been a win for black if he hadn't made a claim. In addition, it's also a draw if the same exact position occurs three times in a game, and that almost happened multiple times in this game. It was only the movement of the black king that stopped another reason for a draw. A game like this won't happen many times, so I say "suck it up".
You can't play 52. Kd8 on the board. You need to write down the move and claim the draw. If you make the move, opponent will immediately capture the pawn and win.
@@ospero7681 Unfortunately, you are completely wrong. Opponent has no interest to claim the draw in winning position. As you can see in 9.4 a player loses right to claim when he or she touches the piece, and as you can see in 9.2 the game is drawn • "upon a correct claim" • "by the player having the move". So, actually white is lost at the moment the player touches the piece in the final move (even before he or she made the move) because the right to claim is lost.
@@ospero7681 The point is, as it stays in the very first words: "The game is drawn, upon a correct claim". So, the player need to claim the draw correctly.
@@Iblis2Lakon No need to be a dickpiston about it, dude. Yes, I was wrong, because I misread a massively confusing rule that at first glance contradicts itself.
Important sideline at 8:43: Black can try 45... Qd7 (instead of 45... Qe7). The point is that 46. Kg8 Kg5 47. f8Q Kg6 wins. Also 46. Kg6 Qe7 47. Kg7 Kg5 wins since black has saved time. White needs to find 46. Kf6 to threaten promotion while preventing both Qe7 and the mating attack.
most chess puzzles and stidies like Troitzky dont have the 50 move rule. Tablebase shows there are wins more than 200 moves without capture not pawn push. The 50 move rule was pre computer age rule.
Haha, so good, never seen that. It's a legendary accomplishment to escape for whole 50 turns achieving a draw. Wow. Just look at the wall, its protection and the constant threat of white to get a queen himself! I think the only time I see it coming to that myself is when I was training to checkmate with bishop and knight haha. And actually it was announced stalemate because of that rule (50) when I messed up. It's also explained here "How to Checkmate with Bishop and Knight" by chess network. Stay sharp and take care.
Shit like this is the reason I believe you can only have a lifelong passion for chess if you're a total psychopath. Jesus christ I hate pawn endgames so much.
9:25 If the claim for a draw has to come from the player whose turn it is then white can't claim at that point. White also can't draw after the next move when the pawn is taken. (Sorry is I've misunderstood the rule from my rating about 800.)
@Mark Kahn Sorry, in my previous comment I meant to refer to 9.3 not 9.4. “[the player] writes his move on the score sheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move [which will result in the draw]”. If the move about to be played will result in a draw, the player can claim it, simple as that.
Human imagination knows no limits!Instead of 52.Kd8, the 'cheeky' 52. Nc2. The author of this somewhat humorous study is the American mathematician Noam Elkies. Once again, the only thing that bothers me about the otherwise brilliant work of master Nelson Lopez is that he often fails to cite the authors of the problems! There are no laws to protect spiritual property in chess - much has been written about this - but still...
The variation where white moves the king and therefore doesn‘t get a draw. Can‘t white just play f8 promoting to a knight with check and still get the draw with the 50 mobe rule?
That shouldn't be considered a draw given that the pawn could have moved and black was making progress towards a forced checkmate. Seems like the rule needs amended
This feels abusive, using the letter of the rules against the spirit of the rules. I suppose we just have to hope that an edge case like this one never arises in real, competitive play rather than a carefully constructed position.
On move 29, could white go in the corner for the “stalemate” trick? After 29. Kh8 Qxf7 30. Nc2 dxc2 31. Na3 Black can no longer promote (though I’m sure black still wins with their queen)
@@replays4026 No, if the material is insuficient then the game should be abandoned immediately, even without the 50 moves rule. Two knights against a lonely king is a position where you cannot force a mate. But there positions where you can force a mate but it will take 100 moves or more.
@@hassanalihusseini1717 But there is a positions, where 2 knights can deliver a checkmate. For example, 2 knights and king vs pawn and King (where pawn is moved on specific squares)
@@replays4026 Yes, but there is an extra pawn. That maybe can be a special case, and I agree with you. Maybe individual positions should be treated individually.
Οκ I cound 50 moves from black but only 49 moves from white the white must move but is turn from black to move. I mean was 99 ply no 100 ply. Ok was 100 ply and claim? Can you claim a draw when is opponent turn?
If you read the FIDE rules, you can also write down your move instead of playing it and if playing that move results in the 50-move rule, then you can claim the draw that way.
someone explain to my 800 elo brain why did the queen force the king to stay in front of the pawn, couldnt black just ignore white's king and march his king? I mean, white king has nowhere to go but to stick to his pawn, focusing on just moving the king, black coulda saved a lot of moves
WAIT!!! (9:28) White can claim a draw but the move has not yet been completed! In FIDE rules article 5 section 5.2 point E, states that “The game may be drawn if EACH player has made at least the last 50 consecutive moves without the movement of any pawn and without any capture…” so White has played 50 moves, Black only 49, and Black is about to make the 50th moves which will be the capture of the pawn on f7 resetting the move count back to Zero, and the games continues! White was a bit early in his declaration of a draw! Fascinating position nevertheless, and this is an illustration why you should take your time and think through each move, and calculate different outcomes. Chess is not just move the piece from this square to that square, it is a strategic and tactical game and that is where it gets its popularity and challenges. Great example! Thanks NM Lopez.
But is the rule not, that there must be 50 full moves? That means white and black has to move 50 times to claim the draw? But then, black can capture the pawn in the last move and the game goes on.
No, because the last pawn move/capture was by white, so the first move that starts the counter is by black, black would have made 50 non-capture moves right before they capture the pawn, so a draw can be claimed.
Isn't it only 49.5 moves because White moved the pawn and also does the Last move so Qf8# should be possible or not? Also would White still be allowed to claim a draw while getting checkmated because of no captures and pawnmoves in 50 moves if that where to be the case?
I believe the 50-move rule has a reason to be there. If the rule was merely in place in order to avoid stagnant games, it should be subject to qualifications just like the rule of perpetual checks.
This is a perfect example of forcing a draw by white when they couldn't get the 3 move perpetual draw to happen because the black king moving was advancing the game.
But wouldn't Black still have their turn after White's 50th move? Because in this study, White moved 50 times after the pawn move but Black only moved 49. Unless I am counting wrong.
One year later, but if you count carefully, black indeed has move 50 times after f7, the first time was on move Black-2, the second time on move Black-3, etc..., the 50th time on move Black-51. Now white moves for the 50th time after f7 on move White-52 and correctly claims a draw.
It isn't a draw because black toke the pawn in the move 50 When he toke the pawn the move 50 was played The 50 move rule can make it a draw if both sides played 50 moves white played 50 move but black isn't Even if black played the 50th move it isn't a draw because black can get a clear win in this position
The 50-move rule very much does count for chess problems. There are many problems where you have to get a 50-move draw, or win by stopping your opponent getting one. Nikita Plaksin was the master of such problems.
10:18 although it’s still a draw, but what happens if you push the pawn and makes a knight (that was the first thing I thought about when I saw that position)
Black: “Finally! After all of this dancing around, you can’t delay the inevitable any longer. I’m going to take your pawn and win the game, and there’s nothing you can do to stop me.”
White: *looks at board* “Well, it’s clear neither of us has been able to make any progress here, so I guess it’s a draw.”
😂😂
In Shatranj puzzles, one half tempo making all the difference was standard. Example at link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatranj#Mansubat
It's simply a rule. Rules make the game. And people play according to them... Similarly how not being able to move gives you a draw even though the enemy has a queen knight and bishop and you blundered all your pieces! Similar how you LOSE the game when you have all pieces, your enemy almost none, but your time got to 0:00! You'd be as shocked about those. I don't see why to be so girly about the video rather than appreciating the accomplishment and deed. It's simply been applied very rarely. Such as in the bishop+knight mate, where you need to look out for your number of turns not making a mistake in order to not reach the 50 treshhold, too. It's strategy to get the enemy into these pits, also like time management and stalling. Draw is a strategy, believe it or not, and while it might not always be perfectly calculated in advance and quite close, chess is also about making the best out of a situation, and intuition, on both sides.
There could be other situations, where neither one wants to take a piece cause it would put him in a worse spot, so they dance around and try to slowly improve their position... perhaps after close to 50 moves one got better, but it counts as a draw when the position was that strong for both that neither would overwhelm the other one early enough to take a piece. (cause they don't want to risk to lose) Also, there are forced 60 or 80 mate patterns found by computers that you won't see in pratice, it counts as draw it's the game. (and yea extremely rare). And on a side note 50 is really really much. And there could be the rule 55 and one game would take 57 "empty" turns in theory before any piece is taken, and we would end up at the same spot.
TBH I think the stalemate (one player can't move) rule is much more extreme than the both sides not doing any game changing moves for 50 turns! But we are so used to it, cause it's seen more often, that people are naturally cheeky about it when achieving a draw that way, even though they might have been clearly worse. (Of course, always, there are many well played stalemates of course, such as chess vibes shows some in his puzzles or other videos).
Just to summarize the video and strength of the players:
If you let white built up a huge threat of getting a queen himself, and you needing to dance around it (almost like queen vs queen endgame), ... while letting him having stopped your black king from taking the quick path with the pawn on b5, ... while letting him having build up that huge wall all protected preventing black to take anything and build a 2nd queen and also forming that long extra path, you weren't better than white as per no-infinite-game rule. Or rather said: Black was *not better enough* (because there is only win, draw or lose, no score). It's that simple. Draw was really very good, or how else do you describe that even strength better than with "draw"? Win-lose? No that's unfair more so you could say it would be a too on-sided score, 50 empty turns was reached. Black was not better enough . But that's why there is several games between players. In the end, this one's one legendary game, and well played by white really. (and surely on both sides). And really the threat of getting a queen was just as strong in this position with the King almost in prison. It's as beautiful as forcing underpromotions and other rules and forced draws giving these nice games or positions chess vibes presents to us so well.
And FYI most games chess vibes presents to us, are always about that 1 single move ahead of what you need, or that one extra momentum you somehow managed to find! (here the antimomentum haha) ... that close exciting match. That's why we watch it! If this game was 53 empty turns instead of 50 we wouldn't have this video! (or, if the rule was max of 45 turns instead!!) Mind blown. 😲
I hope you can see it from a new perspective now. Otherwise I wish you find more beauty in chess in the future. Take care.
@@alexanderxyz6146 This is why I think you should be technically allowed to move your king into check. Of course, if the king ever gets captured, you lose.
@@alexanderxyz6146 I don't understand your usage of the term "girly" here. Could you explain?
That is crazy! The reason for the rule is to resolve games that are making no progress. This game WAS progressing, but a lawyer found a technicality to avoid losing like a chess player.
Rules are rules, (although the 50-move rule is an impure addition to the rules of the game, unlike rules about moving). Not progressing fast enough.
Having found this study, I wish they would adjust the rules to 55 move limit. Of course this exact scenario will never happen in a real game, but maybe something similar that we haven't found yet?
@@IdeaSlug i would say if their is a clear progression at that point (like in this situation where clearly something happend the past 50 moves that gave someone a winning posision) the rule just shouldnt count cuzz its just dodging a loss by abusing the rule
@@ramondewilde05 I've seen positions where there's a forced mate, but it's like mate in 60 or something so it's a draw.
@@Jivvi i mean ig that works still tho its kind of a sad way to draw if u were 1 play away from winning
Like if its still an other 30 moves till u are winning it would be differend
Chess master: draw by 3 fold repetition, insufficient material, or 50 moves rule
Me: draw by blundering my queen and rook
Hey a stalemate is still a mate!
"We are not the same."
@@danielleanderson6371 when masters stalemate because part of their strategy, patzer like me stalemate because of missing obvious checkmate.... LOL
Yes, but ask all chess players including NM Lopez, who has started playing chess and never made a blunder? We all started by making many many blunders, the question is when will you learn enough NOT to make any blunders? Continue playing and the more you play the more you start to recognize patterns and less blunders will come naturally!
@@ChessInstructorSF You have to be bad before you can be good. I keep having to remind myself of this, because I think fear of screwing up keeps me from trying lots of new things that really don't have as much gravity as I think they do. Literally nothing bad happens if you're a chess newbie and you lose a game.
"Then after 49 moves, guess what ..." This shows some actions have long lasting consequences.
I've seen an even crazier one. The rules at some point (1970's?) stated you were in check when your king was under attack by one or two of the opponents pieces. Obviously you were not allowed to make a move that put yourself in check (as now). The puzzle construction was such that the opponent moved one piece to check your king and also revealed a second check from another piece. The solution to the puzzle was to move one of your pawns revealing a third attack on your king but delivering checkmate with your pawn on the opposing king.
The move was legal because by revealing the third piece attacking your king you were making a move which did not leave you in check, since check was only when you were attacked by one or two pieces, not three.
With those old rules is it allowed to take the opponent king if you're not yourself in check (or to clear the check)?
That feels absurd. For one thing, if your king is under attack by more than two pieces, your king is also under attack by "one or two pieces" - unless the rules specified "exactly one or two pieces." For another, I find it hard to believe that chess rules ever permitted a player in check to make a move that didn't escape the check. This is rules lawyering at its finest!
@@DrewLevitt Dems were the rules. It was a pretty contrived situation to take advantage of it, so almost certainly wouldn't ever have happened in a real game, but still needed correcting. In terms of the terminology if they had said the king is in check when under attack by one piece of the opponent then you would maybe assume that means one or more, but when they specifically said one or two pieces, it implies you aren't extrapolating to 'or more' pieces because in that case saying two was redundant.
@@DrewLevitt Anyway everyone knows chess puzzle setters love a bit of rules lawyering to trick the unwary. Saw another beautiful puzzle with I think king and rook vs king rook and pawn. The solution relied on the fact that even though you only have the king and rook left on the board, by convention if castling hasn't been specifically ruled out and the pieces are on the correct starting squares then you must assume neither the rook or king has been moved at any point and castling is still allowed!
@@mattc3581 I think I saw that one too, on this channel I believe. Caught me off guard, and yeah, good stuff!
Amazing. It's worth pointing out that black can never reset the 50-move counter by capturing one of white's other pawns or pieces because they are all protected. Any capture would result in black losing their queen and the game.
If any of white's pieces were hanging, black could try to grab it (and reset the counter) when white's king is in front of the bishop pawn.
10:20 Imagine getting this in a game and your opponent actually gets a draw, while you have to look at a board where you can play Qf8# and it's your turn but there's nothing you can do about it.
Qf8+ is not mate. Black has Kc7
Yes, that's amazing. You have to look 51 moves ahead to get a draw.
Sure is. I can barely see two moves ahead! Lol
You got a very cool mention yesterday from Daniel Negreanu at the end of an analysis video on Carlsen playing poker !
Thanks for mentioning that!
Can you also in 52 move just move the knight, not a king?
Yes
Then black’s pawn can immediately capture the knight, resetting the 50-move counter.
@@erickpoorbaugh6728 then what if white promotes his pawn to a knight instead ? that puts black's king in check, black has to take with the queen and lose the queen if he wants to prevent the 50 move rule but that would just be white's win.
@@erickpoorbaugh6728 Doesn't matter. The game is immediately over before black can make their move. Same as with moving the king.
@@Twas-RightHere This is not correct. It has to be your (!) turn when claiming a draw. Then you have the following options: claim that white and black has made that 50 moves. Or declaring you make a move like Ke8 and writing it down. (That move complete the 50 moves.) Once you moved and black makes a capture (or a mate) the chance has gone.
Some additional sidelines: Instead of Qg7 on move 50, Black could play Qe6 Kf8 Kf6 and then White claims a draw after Kg8. Or Black’s move 50 is Qd6 Ke8 Ke6, now the only move that saves White is Nc2 with the same claim. Btw Nc2 would work as an alternative move 52 in the other lines as well.
It's called "The Internet" from 1990
fr. stop showing the solution in the thumbnail. makes watching it not entertaining
I just hope one day I can draw a game like this. This is definitely on the chess bucket list.
we share initials
Using the rules to your advantage is a major part of chess. I'm impressed that white realised by sweating it out he could claim a draw, which would have been a win for black if he hadn't made a claim.
In addition, it's also a draw if the same exact position occurs three times in a game, and that almost happened multiple times in this game. It was only the movement of the black king that stopped another reason for a draw.
A game like this won't happen many times, so I say "suck it up".
Can you put the FEN/PGN text in the description of future videos? I often like to analyse the positions after the vid :)
can’t anylze tus unless you have a supercomputer
@@yoursleepparalysisdemon1828 chess engines do not require a supercomputer
@@danielyuan9862
some really difficuly positions quite literally do (unless you are willing to wait a week)
Most amazing video I have ever seen 😍 ❤ 💖 🙌 😟
If this was an anime the 50 move rule would be the power of friendship
You can't play 52. Kd8 on the board. You need to write down the move and claim the draw. If you make the move, opponent will immediately capture the pawn and win.
@@ospero7681 Unfortunately, you are completely wrong. Opponent has no interest to claim the draw in winning position. As you can see in 9.4 a player loses right to claim when he or she touches the piece, and as you can see in 9.2 the game is drawn • "upon a correct claim" • "by the player having the move".
So, actually white is lost at the moment the player touches the piece in the final move (even before he or she made the move) because the right to claim is lost.
@@ospero7681 The point is, as it stays in the very first words: "The game is drawn, upon a correct claim". So, the player need to claim the draw correctly.
@@Iblis2Lakon No need to be a dickpiston about it, dude. Yes, I was wrong, because I misread a massively confusing rule that at first glance contradicts itself.
you can claim the draw before writing down the move, as long as the move has been made
@@kennethkho7165 Wrong. If you made a move, opponent will replay and you instantly lose the right to claim the draw.
Reminds me of the Oscar Blathy problem, White to play and mate in 257 moves.
Thanks for taking the time to make this. I learned a lot!
The pawn watching its king and enemy queen run around itself: 🗿
Cue Yakety Sax
"Call an ambulance! But not for me.."
Important sideline at 8:43: Black can try 45... Qd7 (instead of 45... Qe7). The point is that 46. Kg8 Kg5 47. f8Q Kg6 wins. Also 46. Kg6 Qe7 47. Kg7 Kg5 wins since black has saved time. White needs to find 46. Kf6 to threaten promotion while preventing both Qe7 and the mating attack.
most chess puzzles and stidies like Troitzky dont have the 50 move rule. Tablebase shows there are wins more than 200 moves without capture not pawn push. The 50 move rule was pre computer age rule.
It’s still a rule lmao
9:12 you should underpromote to a knight which prevents that checkmate
there's queen to e7 checkmate then
at 1:10 i realised that it will be a 50-move draw
Well, yeah, or else he wouldn't point it out.
Nelson, send this game to FIDE, see if they will adjust the rules to accommodate this possibility
Haha, so good, never seen that. It's a legendary accomplishment to escape for whole 50 turns achieving a draw. Wow. Just look at the wall, its protection and the constant threat of white to get a queen himself! I think the only time I see it coming to that myself is when I was training to checkmate with bishop and knight haha. And actually it was announced stalemate because of that rule (50) when I messed up. It's also explained here "How to Checkmate with Bishop and Knight" by chess network. Stay sharp and take care.
Shit like this is the reason I believe you can only have a lifelong passion for chess if you're a total psychopath.
Jesus christ I hate pawn endgames so much.
9:25 If the claim for a draw has to come from the player whose turn it is then white can't claim at that point. White also can't draw after the next move when the pawn is taken. (Sorry is I've misunderstood the rule from my rating about 800.)
White simply claims the draw before playing the move, as per 9.4 at 0:42
@Mark Kahn Sorry, in my previous comment I meant to refer to 9.3 not 9.4. “[the player] writes his move on the score sheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move [which will result in the draw]”. If the move about to be played will result in a draw, the player can claim it, simple as that.
Human imagination knows no limits!Instead of 52.Kd8, the 'cheeky' 52. Nc2. The author of this somewhat humorous study is the American mathematician Noam Elkies. Once again, the only thing that bothers me about the otherwise brilliant work of master Nelson Lopez is that he often fails to cite the authors of the problems! There are no laws to protect spiritual property in chess - much has been written about this - but still...
The variation where white moves the king and therefore doesn‘t get a draw. Can‘t white just play f8 promoting to a knight with check and still get the draw with the 50 mobe rule?
Lolchess
On move 50, what would happen if ... Qe6 was played instead?
I suspect a player analysing that position and working out the required sequence to draw by the 50-move rule would have lost on time!
definitely not that insane of a draw
this is really just a show of how the 50 move rule is arbitrary and wrong
You shouldn't have explained the 50 move rule.
It became too obvious where this is heading and ruined the punchline for me.
Appeciate you. How nicely you explained. Good work.
That shouldn't be considered a draw given that the pawn could have moved and black was making progress towards a forced checkmate. Seems like the rule needs amended
I would have liked to see 1. . . . Qc2 analyzed to verify whether this alternate move also draws.
This feels abusive, using the letter of the rules against the spirit of the rules. I suppose we just have to hope that an edge case like this one never arises in real, competitive play rather than a carefully constructed position.
On move 29, could white go in the corner for the “stalemate” trick? After 29. Kh8 Qxf7 30. Nc2 dxc2 31. Na3 Black can no longer promote (though I’m sure black still wins with their queen)
Your pawn can move at this position, so i just move Kb2 and its a simple win
... and wouldn't the author of this study deserve to be named?
This is why I never liked the 50 moves rule. It should be abandoned from chess.
2 knights and King vs king is never ending game then
@@replays4026 No, if the material is insuficient then the game should be abandoned immediately, even without the 50 moves rule.
Two knights against a lonely king is a position where you cannot force a mate.
But there positions where you can force a mate but it will take 100 moves or more.
@@hassanalihusseini1717 But there is a positions, where 2 knights can deliver a checkmate. For example, 2 knights and king vs pawn and King (where pawn is moved on specific squares)
@@replays4026 Yes, but there is an extra pawn. That maybe can be a special case, and I agree with you.
Maybe individual positions should be treated individually.
So white can draw with perfect play as long as they can calculate 50 moves ahead.
It is a win because black can sac the queen for the pawn and the knight is forced to sacrifice itself so it is a win
I thought i was a good new player. Turns out I can even bet advanced bots =(
Imagine actually calculating 50 moves ahead in such a position!
Considering the vast majority is repetition, it's not crazy.
Οκ I cound 50 moves from black but only 49 moves from white the white must move but is turn from black to move. I mean was 99 ply no 100 ply.
Ok was 100 ply and claim? Can you claim a draw when is opponent turn?
If you read the FIDE rules, you can also write down your move instead of playing it and if playing that move results in the 50-move rule, then you can claim the draw that way.
good job......👍👍👍
someone explain to my 800 elo brain why did the queen force the king to stay in front of the pawn, couldnt black just ignore white's king and march his king? I mean, white king has nowhere to go but to stick to his pawn, focusing on just moving the king, black coulda saved a lot of moves
If the white king is next to the pawn when the pawn becomes a queen... Black loses
WAIT!!! (9:28) White can claim a draw but the move has not yet been completed! In FIDE rules article 5 section 5.2 point E, states that “The game may be drawn if EACH player has made at least the last 50 consecutive moves without the movement of any pawn and without any capture…” so White has played 50 moves, Black only 49, and Black is about to make the 50th moves which will be the capture of the pawn on f7 resetting the move count back to Zero, and the games continues! White was a bit early in his declaration of a draw! Fascinating position nevertheless, and this is an illustration why you should take your time and think through each move, and calculate different outcomes. Chess is not just move the piece from this square to that square, it is a strategic and tactical game and that is where it gets its popularity and challenges. Great example! Thanks NM Lopez.
They both had 50 moves. White had moves #3-52, black had moves #2-51 with no capture or pawn advance.
No both had play 50 moves
Wait why not just become a knight but white is gonna lose because of that
Wow just bonkers of a game 😂😂😂😂😂
4:18 What if 1... Qc2, 2, Nxc2, dxc2, 3. f7 cxb1=Q 4. f8= Q, Qh8+ and then we have a black Queen seeking to trade so the Black King eats white pawns?
Seeing it at first glance, I can’t help but hearing Gotham words he said in Stockfish vs AlphaZero:
“HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A QUEEN IN PRISON?”
But is the rule not, that there must be 50 full moves? That means white and black has to move 50 times to claim the draw? But then, black can capture the pawn in the last move and the game goes on.
No, because the last pawn move/capture was by white, so the first move that starts the counter is by black, black would have made 50 non-capture moves right before they capture the pawn, so a draw can be claimed.
If you can demonstrate to the tournament director that there is a forced win, but it takes more than 50 moves, then it is STILL A WIN.
Isn't it only 49.5 moves because White moved the pawn and also does the Last move so Qf8# should be possible or not? Also would White still be allowed to claim a draw while getting checkmated because of no captures and pawnmoves in 50 moves if that where to be the case?
On your final question, no. The rules are very clear: checkmate immediately ends the game.
@@rogerkearns8094 But 50 move also ends the game immediatly and I can't see a rule to what happens if both applies at the same time
@@linuslucke3838
No, I've just checked rule 9.3, it doesn't say _immediately._ The draw is _claimed._
@@rogerkearns8094 ok but what about online chess? There it's definetly automatic. But by your answer i assume checkmate to be priotity aswell.
"Isn't it only 49.5 moves because White moved the pawn"
No
What if white gets a knight after the king comes closer
I believe the 50-move rule has a reason to be there. If the rule was merely in place in order to avoid stagnant games, it should be subject to qualifications just like the rule of perpetual checks.
could white have moved the knight at the end?
What if instead of a queen ,white got a knite?He could capture the black queen and maybe win
When?
This is a perfect example of forcing a draw by white when they couldn't get the 3 move perpetual draw to happen because the black king moving was advancing the game.
Why is the black pawn at b7 needed?
It's not stalemate, it's pat (draw when king has nowhere to move and doesn't have any pieces to waste moves).
That's the definition of stalemate tho? And what's pat?
Should be mentioned that also 3. Kg6 (instead of 3. Kh6) would lose that one move because of 3... Qg4+.
I thought the definition of a move was
white + black's move. I guess not x3
THIS GAME DESERVES TO BE IN THE SEASON 2 OF NO GAME NO LIFE
ngnl is not getting a season 2
@@monke7566 hard to swallow pill
10:20 Pawn promotion to bishop
When the king came over the pawn couldove became a knight and check lol
Black: I am inevitable!
White: hold my 50 moves
Yea, that's a crazy one!
So was this position taken from an actual game? If so, what game?
😮😮😮😮😮 I am shocked!!!
Bro this is amazing
Criminal gets away because a loophole in the law.😁
9:02 does under promotion to a knight help here?
It's a pawn move so its not a draw
Sorry it is a draw😊
But wouldn't Black still have their turn after White's 50th move? Because in this study, White moved 50 times after the pawn move but Black only moved 49. Unless I am counting wrong.
One year later, but if you count carefully, black indeed has move 50 times after f7, the first time was on move Black-2, the second time on move Black-3, etc..., the 50th time on move Black-51. Now white moves for the 50th time after f7 on move White-52 and correctly claims a draw.
This is amazing!
Really Loved It!!!
@7:19 surely black can play queen f6 as this will force white to play king d7? This would win them the game ??
...Qf6 does not force Kd7; white has Kf8
If Qf6, white can promote the pawn; It's protected.
If Qf6 white just promotes the pawn.
It isn't a draw because black toke the pawn in the move 50
When he toke the pawn the move 50 was played
The 50 move rule can make it a draw if both sides played 50 moves white played 50 move but black isn't
Even if black played the 50th move it isn't a draw because black can get a clear win in this position
Since white moved it's pawn on move 2 black played moves 2-51, which are also 50 moves. So this should still work.
I was able to find P-B7 draw only because you said there was exactly one move.
I’d be so mad
I hate this.
Composer?
Kudos
Nelson, I think the 50-moves rule doesn't count for puzzles, right ? Only for real games.
The 50-move rule very much does count for chess problems. There are many problems where you have to get a 50-move draw, or win by stopping your opponent getting one. Nikita Plaksin was the master of such problems.
I saw it
amazing
Insane!
9:21 what if white promoted to a knight
It doesnt do anything because black can just move the king to d6
The ending position is just a win, still the game is a draw.
Sadly not all tournaments use the exact same rule as for how many moves lead to a draw.
I calculated that without seeing the initial position
That's ridiculous! Thanks for sharing!
10:18 although it’s still a draw, but what happens if you push the pawn and makes a knight (that was the first thing I thought about when I saw that position)
Queen to e7 checkmate