Timeline for Longest sequence of mutually forced moves
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2020 at 21:20 | history | edited | Rewan Demontay | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 12 characters in body |
| Aug 31, 2016 at 5:09 | comment | added | M.M | Since the longest sequence of legal moves from this position is 0, perhaps it should not be the accepted answer! | |
| Mar 14, 2014 at 22:07 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Mar 9, 2014 at 21:44 | comment | added | RemcoGerlich | No, this has nothing to do with the 50 moves rule. See rules 1.3 or 5.2.b in the rules (my link). Or even rule 9.6 -- the rules describe this situation three times! It's an immediate draw, no claims. | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 21:26 | comment | added | Voo | @Remco To be fair, you can have infinite loops as long as both players play along, because the 50 moves rule only says may be drawn - technicality obviously. | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 20:08 | comment | added | RemcoGerlich | Yes. It's in Article 1 of the rules, even ( fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=124&view=article ). Infinite loops aren't really compatible with the laws of chess. | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 20:01 | comment | added | RemcoGerlich | Although technically, since neither side can possibly checkmate the other here, it's an immediate draw (just like stalemate). So there aren't any legal moves at all here, the game is over. | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 19:18 | comment | added | ETD | There we go! (And I deleted my answer, since it was flawed, as its infinite loop wasn't fully forced.) | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 19:14 | history | answered | bof | CC BY-SA 3.0 |