Talk:Fifty-move rule

move 70
"Drawn on move 70" Does this mean the 70th move of the game or 20 moves after the 50 move rule could have been invoked? Rmhermen 15:07 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Of the game. I'll make it explicit. --Camembert


 * I added a link to a page that contains the moves of the game. Oddly enough, there are two versions of the moves. The one in the page I linked to (Mad Aussie's) and the one found from Chess records. Chessgames.com doesn't have either of the games, which is a pity. However, I found the game from the database of the Chessmaster 9000 program and the moves were as in Mad Aussie's page: ending at 69. Kh2 Rd7 ½-½. --ZeroOne 13:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the maximal number of moves needed in the rook+bishop vs. rook endgame from 115 to 59, which is the maximal number of moves needed until mate or capture. I also changed in the third exceptional position from "and a bishop on the opposite color as the opponent's pawn" to "and a bishop on the same color as the opponent's pawn". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.96.234 (talk • contribs)


 * Good. Yes, the number of moves to a capture is what matters, since it restarts the 50-move counter.  Good edits.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Priority (importance)
Should this perhaps be importance=Highrather than Mid? I was marking pages on specific aspects of the official rules as High importance if they are something that the average club player or beginning tournament player would or should know. I don't have a strong opinion on it but want to see what other people think rather than just changing it. Quale 15:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm the one that put in Mid importance. i notice that in many cases you have rated things as being more important than I would.  However, I have no objections to changing it to High importance.  I didn't think it was very important because it rarely comes up - probably easily the least common form of a draw.  However, you are right in that it is something the club or tournament player should know.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

...can continue forever...
no game can continue in perpetuity. there are a finite number of possible positions in the game, and once each one has been repeated twice, it's a draw, right? i think!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.51.51 (talk • contribs) 15 June 2007


 * The point is that the draw must be claimed by either player. So the same position may be repeated more than three times if no player claims the draw, which usually happens though. --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 11:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Black could claim draw in example game
The article states, "The last capture occurred on White's 63rd move (and the last pawn move occurred before that). Black could have written his 112th move on his scoresheet and claimed a draw." But if Black were to make his 112th move, it would be Black's 50th without a pawn move or capture (Black's 63rd through 112th), but White would only have moved 49 times with no pawn move or capture (White's 64th through 112th). So the first opportunity to claim a draw under the 50-move rule would have been White's 113th move. Am I missing something here, or should this be changed? Holy 18:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you are correct. I'll fix it a little later.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is correct to say that the draw can be claimed after White's 112th move. Black can write down his 112th move, and if it is not a capture or pawn move, he can claim a draw.  (That would be the 50th consecutive move.)  Similarly for White on his 113th move. Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That was still not right, but the article is correct now. White can claim it after black's 112th move by writing down a move that would be his 50th move w/o a capture or pawn move.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Bubba73, good job. It's right on the money now. Plus, that's a good point, that either player can claim the draw without writing down his intended move after White's first opportunity to claim the draw. Holy 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I was the one that got it somewhat wrong to begin with. Bubba73 (talk), 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, I like the example because:
 * 1) It is an actual example of when both 9.3.a and 9.3.b would apply
 * 2) it is between two very famous players
 * 3) it ties into stalemante and the two knights endgame.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Omission of Castling from 50 Move Draw Rule should be Mentioned as Inconsistent
Both captures and pawn moves are irreversible, so they are part of the 50 move draw rule. Well, castling is also irreversible (as is acknowledged by its inclusion in the Third Repetition of a Position draw rule. Therefore, castling should be added to the 50 move draw rule, by FIDE and the USCF. This wiki article would be slightly better if it mentioned the inconsistency of excluding castling from the 50 move draw rule. - GeneM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.194.236 (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the reason that captures and pawn moves reset the 50-move counter is that they indicate that progress is being made, not that they are irreversible per se. Castling counts as a regular move in the 50-move count.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Secondly, that should not be mentioned unless there is a WP:reliable source saying that, otherwise it is original research or the editor's opinion. That is, the article is about the way the rules are, not what some people think they should be.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just wondering about that, i.e., whether there was some historical justification for castling not resetting the fifty-move counter. Finding nothing in the article, I had to look here.  I do think that a mention of the philosophical inconsistency would not be out of place in the article. WHPratt (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It could be included if there is a reliable source. Otherwise it is the editor's opinion and should not be included.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A while back I said that castling is not reversible, but it doesn't reset the move count. It isn't reversible in one move, but you could take three moves to undo it.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But, after castling you lose the right to castle, so it is irreversible in that sense. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And I checked several books for the reason for the count starting after the last capture or pawn move and for castling not resetting it, but I didn't find anything. The capture/pawn move started in 1851. But it seems to me that the conditions are more about making progress towards winning the game rather than being irreversible, per se. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The rationale within the Third-Repetition-of-Position rule was that even if the static piece placement were identical in two positions, the right to castle (or perhaps to make an en passant capture) affected the dynamics of the position, and had to be taken into consideration. We're testing for zero progress in this case.
 * The fifty-move rule isn't looking at a particular position, but rather long-term prospects. Different philosophies in play at diffrerent times, I'd say. WHPratt (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking now that if castling did indeed reset the fifty-move-count, it would be of little import. Try to imagine someone attempting to execute a difficult checkmate, say K + B + N vs K.  So he's going to castle midway through the process and buy himself 50 more moves?  Ridiculous! If he's got an extra rook just sitting around waiting to castle, he should instead be using it to assist in an easy checkmate.  Can anyone come up with a scenario in which such a rule change would make any difference WHPratt (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That means that he would go through 49 moves of just moving the bishop! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is one thing. If a player starts without a particular rook as a means of giving "odds" (handicap), he can still castle as if that rook were there.  So, at a critical juncture, said player could move his king two squares towards the nonexistant rook and reset the counter in the course of a difficult checkmate, and with no rooks involved.  But odds games would have other eccentricities in general, and shouldn't be discussed.  They aren't standard chess. WHPratt (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In retroanalysis problems castling does reset the 50-move count. Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Reason for the rule
One should add some reasons as to whythis rule was adopted, e.g. by giving a list of endgames "typically" or always winnable within 50 moves.--129.70.14.128 (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know of a reference to why there is the rule, but it is obviously to keep a game from going on indefinitely. The basic checkmates all require well under 50 moves - K+Q: 9 moves, K+R: 16 moves, K+2B: 19 moves, K+B+N: 33 moves - with perfect play by both sides.  K+Q vs. K+R, etc takes fewer than 50 moves to win.  The part about no capture or no pawn move is a pretty good indication of no progress being made otherwise.  But now there are quite a few rare endgames that require more than 50 moves (see pawnless chess endgames) - some require 66, some require hundreds.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe all 4-pieces endgames require less than 50 moves? It would be a somewhat "natural" limit then. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All four-piece endgames without pawns require fewer than 50 moves to win, if a win can be forced. But most endgames have more than four pieces.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And with pawns, each pawn move resets the count. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info; then I don't know a good explanation either.... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought that K+R vs K+B could take more than 50 moves to resolve. WHPratt (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * King and rook versus king and bishop is almost always a draw. The rook can win if it can quickly win the bishop (a fork or skewer within a couple of moves) or in some cases if the king and bishop are cornered in the wrong corner (the bishop is on the same color as the corner square).  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The rook and bishop versus rook endgame often bumps up against the 50-move rule. Most positions are a theoretical draw with optimal play.  But it is difficult to defend, and the superior side often keeps playing.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe that's the one that I had in mind. Thanks.  WHPratt (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Change from high to mid importance
I changed this from High importance to Mid importance. Although similar rules such as threefold repetition are High (I think), the fifty move rule is rarely used, compared to threefold repetition. If you think it should be high, change it back. Bubba73 (talk), 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is viewed about 100 times per day, though. Bubba73 (talk), 21:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

75 moves in the late 1980s
There are some references for the rule for some positions being 75 moves in the late 1980s. However, I now have the 1985 and 1989 rulebooks (there are none in between) and they don't say anything about 75 moves. The 100 move rule for some positions existed in 1985 but in 1989 it was changed to 50 moves for all positions. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to sort out the history of when the rule was extended past 50 moves. I'm getting rulebooks to try to fill in the history.  Books other than rulebooks conflict with what official rulebooks say. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

paragraph removed
I removed the paragraph about the irreversible moves - it has been unreferenced since December, 2011. I checked several rulebooks and books about the history of chess, and none of them said anything about irreversible moves. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

New 75 move rule
It seems the "Statement of rule" section needs to be edited. It currently states "Theoretically, a game could continue indefinitely this way..." but this is what the new rule 9.6b (added in 2014) is targeting: ''any consecutive series of 75 moves have been completed by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.'' (FIDE Handbook) so that no game is even allowed to continue indefinitely, even if neither player is claiming. -Håkan 148.177.129.211 (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. I tried to explain the 2014 rule, feel free to improve it if you find a better wording.  Rule 9.6a might deserve mention in three-fold repetition.  Quale (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That's better. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Intermediate “double amount” rule
When I started playing chess, I read through the FIDE rules in the back of my chess textbook (in a Norwegian translation, but I don't think it matters). I clearly remember them discussing the 50-move rule, but they had a variation I haven't seen in the history section here: It stated that if “the experts” (without further qualifications; probably meant as “prevailing endgame theory” or something) had determined a position to require more than 50 moves to mate, the player would be given twice the amount of moves said experts deemed necessary to mate.

Does anyone else remember such a rule? If so, can it be inserted at its right place in the history? Sesse (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was the rule for several years. I think this is discussed in the history section.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see now; they're just older than I thought: “In 1928 FIDE enacted rules that if an endgame theoretically requires more than 50 moves to force checkmate, twice that number of moves were allowed.”- Sesse (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The rule was still in effect when I started playing in the late 1960s. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Example Filipowicz versus Smederevac wrong
This example is wrong as the game ends in a draw after 49 moves each without capture or pawn advance, not 50. Most trivial and clear to all, for completeness only I mention this again: The last capture or pawn move in the game was 20...h5. Both players afterwards played the moves 21 to last move 69, so the game ends after 49 moves each without capture or pawn move. There is no source provided what exactly happened, and possibly not easily found (my opinion). With the given information, only speculations are possible, and this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The first scenario for legally claiming a draw would be, that White had made the 70th move, then Black wrote down his 70th move, and claimed the draw for the Fifty-Move rule. (Both moves being no captures and no pawn moves.) In this case, often the last half move is not recorded. But in this scenario, there must be the 70th move of White. The last move in the game, in various sources, is however 69... Rd7. There is no information that more moves have been played as recorded, making this a valid claim and as shown, such a scenario is even unlikely. Possibly there was an invalid draw claim, or they even agreed to stop the game for no progress. Wrapping this up, for the game, only speculative scenarios are possible. It did not end with at least fifty moves each without capture or pawn move, and as such does not belong here. The game is special and also mentioned as such under Latest first capture. Here the place is appropriate, but most annoying the Fifty-Move is stated again, and again without source information except the game PGN, which shows otherwise.

The decisive question is: How comes that this is declared as an example for a draw by the Fifty-Move rule when only 49 such moves have been played?

If there would be source, like that they planned two more moves, that would be different. But nothing in this direction is mentioned. As such the statement that the game is a draw by the Fifty-Move rule is simply false. If nothing new is found, I think this must be rewritten. The options I see are to find a better example,remove the example ormention as is, sort of "an example of a game with nearly fifty moves without capture or pawn moves before the endgame is ...". Mentioning the game as such is even bad per my opinion as this article is quoted a lot, without thinking, thus spreading the wrong statement. Dlbbld (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, White should have made move 70, Black should notify the director of intended move, so it is a little wrong. But it is unusual as a 69-move game with no captures. Perhaps both players said that they didn't intend to capture, but this would not be the correct procedure.  Or perhaps they thought it was 50 moves by one player.  But that is, as you say, speculation.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Not for the first time, chess.com is wrong, as is chessgames.com. Both are generally unreliable sources, though we often use chessgames.com as a convenient link to a replayable game board. They both omit the moves 68...Nf7 69.Nh3. See https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/records/recordstxt.htm#Latest%20first%20capture and https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/palview3/recgames.htm. Tim Krabbe's site may be self-published, but it is very well researched. He is up there with Edward Winter for reliable chess information. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @ MaxBrowne2 you are saying "Both are generally unreliable sources". Can you give game examples after 1960 or sources stating that? Just as additional information, this game is entered in Chessbase Big Database 2020 as in chess.com. Chessbase is one of the most used commercial chess databases, would you say that Chessbase is also not reliable for games after 1960? You have stated the problem with Jim Krabbé's website already yourself, that it is self-published. If it cited a primary source, that would solve it, but I couldn't find a primary source on the website. Even if the quality in chess.com would be "bad", it would still be questioning why exactly this game is incorrect. Only a primary source can solve this problem. Which I would look for example a newspaper report shortly after the tournament, the FIDE records (is there such a thing??). But as such, the statement is not based on a primary source and with different secondary sources; this remains the problem it is. Dlbbld (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:RSSELF: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I think we all agree Krabbé qualifies in spades as an established expert on the subject matter.  As for the unreliability of chess.com and chessgames.com, I'm not sure why we should be assured they are reliable for games after 1960.  Is that supposed to be a conservative estimate of when they can be considered reliable?  Otherwise I wonder what changed to make them perhaps unreliable in 1959 but certainly entirely trustworthy in 1960.  Chessgames.com at least was highly unreliable for old games, and the problem is I have no idea whether they can be trusted for all newer games and if so when the dividing line between unreliable and reliable is.  I also don't have any idea what editorial and quality control chessgames.com uses for its games database.  That doesn't mean that we can't make use of these sites in articles and I think they are fantastic resources, but I never want to see a Wikipedia article make a claim about lifetime head-to-head records or the like that is cited only to the results of an online games database search.  In the past we've had chess editors strongly maintain at WT:CHESS that these databases are very highly accurate and 100% complete for games in the modern era.  But I think they're wrong about completeness, and probably wrong about accuracy as well. Quale (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If there's a primary source the most likely candidate would be a 1966 edition of Szachy, but there are obviously access problems with this source. What appears to have happened is that the game was incorrectly transcribed to one database and the error was subsequently copied all over the internet. I can't prove this of course but in view of the circumstances of the draw it seems the most likely explanation. Krabbe includes a note on Filipowicz's account of the game - sourced from Szachy perhaps? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * |'British Chess Literature' by Tim Harding on page 290 makes a statement regarding Chessbase database quality: "In the early days of ChessBase and the internet, there was a rush by people to post games they had input into free public collections.". It mentions especially 1945: "Nowadays ChessBase appear to be taking more care to check their pre-1945 games, but more needs to be done." I just took 1960 to be on the safe side regarding the game, picking the year has no meaning otherwise. Dlbbld (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further details. I received astonishing information which settles the matter finally for me regarding confirmation of the way you mentioned the game was played. I hopefully will revert here quickly, just wanted to state this in advance as from my view. Dlbbld (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't keep us hanging, what is your "astonishing information" and where did it come from? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * After careful consideration, I think I can mention already, as such without citation it is a personal statement only and of course can be freely doubted. I addressed FIDE on this matter and nearly fell off the chair when I got a response the same day from Andrzej Filipowicz himself with a PGN and CBV (Chessbase) attached, confirming the moves you mentioned and the draw claim. He is an IA, and as such, I assume affiliated with FIDE. That is, of course, information without citation and cannot be used and can be doubted. I asked for permission to cite, and I hope to receive as such to clarify the issue. Dlbbld (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned I have written to FIDE about this game and received a reply from Andrzej Filipowicz himself. As he is an IA, I assume he is in contact with FIDE. My mail was an official request for clarification, so the response is an official statement. In the reply, the game moves are confirmed to be as on Tim Krabbé's website and that the game was two times adjourned. Also that in fact a draw request for the Fifty-move rule was made by Andrzej Filipowicz, and that the opponent was not happy with it. Can you please advice how to proceed best with this information? This is of general interest and no reason to stay with me. Clearly, I will not post a mail here. That would be inappropriate. I forwarded it to Tim Krabbé. I also informed the mentioned websites chessgames.com, chess365.com and chesstempo.com that their version is incorrect. Do you have any experience how such corrections can be made best? Is there any chance that the wrong record will be changed? Dlbbld (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that he confirmed it. But the game is already referenced to Tim Krabbé so I think that is sufficient.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have read this article as a regular Wikipedia user, trying to find some examples for the fifty-move rule. The first example I put aside, as mentioned everywhere I checked, there have been 49 moves. As the article uses chessgames.com all over, I assumed this source is ok, and added links for a few missing games. For the unexpected information that chessgames.com and others are not reliable, this also must be formulated towards Wikipedia. Wikipedia cites these sources regularly, so in respect to citing these sources, Wikipedia is as bad as these sources. Don't misunderstand this as saying the articles are bad, which I do not.


 * Finally the information regarding wrong game in chessgames.com and similiar should find it's way into the article. So other do not fall in the same trap as I did. But then, starting all over, there is no primary source, and if I add this, it is just own research.


 * Before the information from MaxBrowne2 I have searched the Internet, I did not find one source stating the game correctly. I did not find Tim Krabbé's site. The site of Tim Krabbé looks reliable, but he lacks citing a primary source for the game, which is under these circumstances necessary. Also what happens if another user edits the reference, and replaces the link with a link to chessgames.com? That would also be justifiable, as now it looks strange. All games have links to chessgames.com, except the one from Filipowicz, and this without explanation. Dlbbld (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I sent a mail to chessgames.com, chess365.com, chesstempo.com, ChessBase and Tim Krabbé as well. No answer from first two, chess365.com corrected the game. ChessBase will try in next edition; Tim Krabbé mentioned that he is sure having an original source, but locating would take too much time. Dlbbld (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That is good. I suspect that the editor who put it in originally got it from somewhere like Krabbé, but somewhere along the line it was linked to the  chessgames.com page with the incorrect moves.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * chessgames.com corrected the game by now (so linking to it). Dlbbld (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

New article's Seventy-five-move rule and Fivefold repetition
To be blunt, I hope that someone with administrator right's can create the mentioned articles. I read the process for creating articles and that there is a long waiting list and that administrators can shorten the process. For these two terms my opinion is, that they are clearly justified as Wikipedia entries. The Seventy-five-move rule must be mentioned together with this article, the Fifty-move rule. The Fivefold repetition together with the Threefold repetition. Threefold repetition is related to Fifty-move rule, I keep this informally for now. Both terms are not highly complex but complex enough to deserve an entry. This in itself per my view is sufficient to create these article. I hope this entry can work towards this goal, and look forward to hear other opinions. Both terms are only quickly covered in the Chess - end of the game article. Dlbbld (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think they need their own articles - they would be almost entirely redundant with the other articles. The only difference is the number of positions/moves and that no claim is necessary.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bubba73. We can create redirects from seventy-five-move rule to fifty-move rule and from fivefold repetition to threefold repetition.  (In that vein we should also have a redirect from 75-move rule.) Then anyone who searches Wikipedia for those terms will come to a page that describes them, and if someone has reason to wikilink those titles they will be blue links that go to a reasonable page.  Something else that can be done right away is to add brief "seventy-five-move rule" and "fivefold repetition" entries to glossary of chess terms.  And actually I would remove mention of these rather esoteric rules from the main chess article entirely as being not of great interest to the subject of chess as a whole. There's a reason we have a rules of chess article and don't (or rather shouldn't since actually we do) try to stuff every obscure rule into the main chess page.  They can live in rules of chess and in the other articles mentioned.  Quale (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the redirects. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please consider the points below. The rules itself in their full extent and their various implications are poorly understood.
 * The two rules are effective since 1 July 2014. Notably, the arbiter must draw the game in these situations. This main point was wrongly stated in Chess article, showing misconception. By the way, under USCF rules the arbiter may declare a draw, but under FIDE rules the arbiter must declare a draw.
 * Before the introduction of the two rules, the possible number of moves in a chess game was not limited. With the introduction of these two rules (any of the two would be enough) the possible numbers of moves are now limited. This is a substantial change in game theory.
 * The potential outcome for some position's changes. This is surprising at first, thus often neglected. For example, please consider a position where White has a mate in over 75 moves, involving no capture or pawn move by White and Black having no capture or pawn move. And the position is played with ideal play by White and ideal play by Black, by Black as not knowing the Fifty-move rule, so not making the draw request in a lost position. With the Seventy-Five-move rule, this is a draw, with the Fifty-move rule a win for White.
 * Engine play must be adapted and changes with these rules in endgames. This article is explaining this for the Fifty-move rule: http://galen.metapath.org/egtb50/.
 * The rules lead to invalid games played in OTB Blitz and partly Rapid games. As practically the rules are hard to check, and the games are invalid if they continue beyond any of the two rules. Examples: The games below continued although the game had already ended according to the rule. Notably the first ended in a win by White, despite should have ended by draw by the rules.
 * Fivefold repetition rule: This game is from World Blitz Championship in 2018, Yu vs Alekseenko, there is a fivefold repetition after 91.Qa8+ (91.Qa8+ 89.Qa8+ 87.Qa8+ 85.Qa8+ 83.Qa8). The game should have been stopped and declared as a draw. However, play continued, and Yu finally won the game.
 * Seventy-five-move rule: This game is from World Blitz Championship in 2015, Guijarro vs Antipov, there are 75 moves each without capture or pawn move after 137.Kg2 (starting with 62...Nd7). The game should have been stopped and declared as a draw. However, play continued and finally ended as a draw.
 * Most unaware too many the rules are at the same level as mate (rule "6.2.1.1 the move ends the game"). As such draw claims based on these rules after a game loss are automatically valid, also after the game is finished and the score sheets are signed.
 * The rules are applied in online play. With online play becoming increasingly popular that also increases the weight the rules have. There two examples where the computer ended the game:
 * Fivefold repetition rule: This game is from PRO Chess League KO Stage (won by Caruana), Robson vs Moranda, there is a fivefold repetition after 42...Kf8 (42...Kf8 40...Kf8 38...Kf8 36...Kf8 34...Kf8). The computer immediately ends the game and declares as a draw.
 * Seventy-five-move rule: This game is from PRO League Group Stage in 2019, Firouzja vs Demchenko, there are 75 moves each without capture or pawn move after 126...Kg7 (starting with 52.Kf2). The computer immediately ends the game and declares as a draw.
 * Dlbbld (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC), added examples Dlbbld (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The suggestions with the redirects are nice at first thought but at second thought I would dismiss them. It gives a wrong impression that, e.g. the Seventy-Five-move rule is a special case of the Fifty-Move rule, which is finally not correct. @Quale: I'm afraid I have to disagree putting the mentioned rules anywhere near to "rather esoteric rules". I play online Blitz chess regularly, and draws by Fivefold repetition happens regularly. All four rules are relevant. As is they are mentioned on the Chess and Rules of chess page, not on the glossary page, where they definitely must be mentioned. If the mentioning on the Chess page is finally appropriate I can't make an opinion, the article is enormous, and I can't jump into one discussion after the other. However, if there would be articles for the rules that would resolve the problems as they could be linked. Dlbbld (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the very precise analysis and considering my arguments. I agree on all points that the mentioned detail information is suited better in other articles. I had no general intent to incorporate such detail information in the article on its own, that is merely my understanding why these two rules have significance. The requirement of having more than one source I don't know how to meet, I only know the FIDE rules as a source. I am happy with the redirects and subsections. I gave the subsections a try and would be happy if somebody can do the necessary finetuning to the wording before the sections get deleted. For consistency shouldn't here also be a redirect 3-fold repetition as for 5-fold repetition? Dlbbld (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The general criterion for creating a new article is that the topic should be "notable", with the definition of notability being somewhat flexible, but generally described in WP:NOTE.


 * There is a handy-dandy index of popular chess articles at WikiProject Chess/Popular pages. It shows how often someone has looked up an article "recently" -- currently, it shows the month of June.  On this list, Fifty-move rule is in 213th place, while Threefold repetition is in 145th place.  These positions are pretty good and suggest that creating separate articles for these topics was a good decision.  (That decision was made way before I started editing Wikipedia.)


 * Judging from the seat of my pants, I suspect that if articles were created for the 75-move rule and/or fivefold repetition, they would languish at the bottom of the list for many years. But the suggestion of using redirects seems pretty sensible to me.  Bruce leverett (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As Bruce says, standalone articles should meet the requirements of WP:N. One thing I didn't find on that page in my quick scan is the idea that in general more than one source with significant coverage is expected to justify an article.  So for example if an article used only the FIDE Handbook as a source that would be considered weak.  You can consider what sources in addition to the FIDE Handbook make significant mention of these rules.  (It's important also to know that WP:N applies to articles, not individual claims.  So 5-fold repetition and 75-move rule are definitely significant enough to be explained in articles, WP:N only applies to the question of whether a standalone article is warranted.)
 * As to the specifics of the importance of these rules, I have to say that I greatly disagree. In my opinion the 75-move rule and 5-fold repetition are among the least important chess rules.  As evidence I offer the fact that chess thrived for 1600 years without either of them.  And I do maintain that the 75-move rule is a special case of the 50-move rule and 5-fold repetition is a special case of 3-fold repetition, and this is not the wrong impression.  (The obvious point is the 3-fold and 5-fold use identical definitions of what positions are considered the same [section 9.6.1 on 5-fold incorporates the section 9.2.2 definition of same position from the 3-fold rule] and 50-move and 75-move share the same "no pawn move or capture" condition.)
 * The fact that chess becomes a finite game with 5-fold repetition is of little practical significance. As evidence I offer the fact that every chess game played in the 1600 years without the rules did in fact end, so as a practical matter, little changed on that point.  As far as game theory goes, I find the supposition that any readers would look for the fivefold repetition article hoping to learn something about the mathematical game theory of chess to be highly implausible.  I do think the significance of the rule in making chess finite is worthy of mention, but that mention should be in a context where game theory is being discussed, not a standalone article almost entirely about something else.  Be aware that this mention needs a WP:RS reliable source.  Although it's obvious that 5-fold repetition makes chess a finite game, it isn't obvious enough to to be claimed in an article without providing a source.  I also think that in game theory chess was widely considered a finite game anyway even before the 5-fold repetition rule.  (Either player alone without cooperation of the other could make chess finite even without the 5-fold rule simply by claiming 3-fold repetition if it occurs.) I find the conditions imposed in the third reason (Black makes perfect moves but doesn't know the 50-move rule and so fail to claim a draw) to be so contrived as to be uninteresting in either a practical or a theoretical context.  You say this is "often neglected", but I think there's an obvious reason for that—no one cares about the potential outcomes of a game with a player who makes perfect moves but doesn't know the rules.     For the fourth item, if chess engine play really needs a significant adaptation, a better place to discuss that might be computer chess where it would have context.  I don't find the other arguments to weigh significantly in demonstrating that any necessary points could not be made in a sections of fifty-move rule and threefold repetition.
 * I have created the redirects fivefold repetition, 5-fold repetition, seventy-five-move rule, 75-move rule and seventyfive-move rule. This doesn't preclude making them standalone articles instead, so anyone who feels that these would be better as standalone articles should feel free to edit those pages and replace the redirect with article text.  My personal suggestion would be to instead start by creating a "Fivefold repetition" section in the threefold repetition article and a "75-move rule" section in the fifty-move rule article.  Once those new sections are sufficiently developed, the merit of standalone articles might become readily apparent and should be easier to demonstrate to the skeptics.  Quale (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * First I did not say how long these articles should be. To avoid misunderstanding, I think these should be short articles, like ten sentences or so and two examples. Articles still suitable, for this is too long to include on other pages per my opinion.
 * Then the discussion of whether these rules are special cases of the existing rules or not needs a closer look. When I said that the rules are not special cases of the existing rules, I took a rule-technical point of view. The rules define what it means to "repeat" (turn, position, etc.). The threefold repetition rule then says that a draw is claimable after three such repetitions. The fivefold repetition rule says that the game ends in a draw after five such repetitions. These rules are in fact defined independently, and neither rule needs the other to be applied. As such rule technically, they are completely independent. Now there is also a historical point of view. The fivefold rule was long introduced after the threefold rule, and it might be the case, that it would never have been defined, would there be no threefold rule before. That is speculation. In this sense, however, one could say there is a dependency on the evolvement of the rules. The same thoughts apply to the fifty-move and seventy-five-move rules. So it depends on the point of view making this statement. I don't know the point of view here from you, but if it's a rule-technical point of view, I don't see it this way. For writing an article, both points of view are equally valid. Dlbbld (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree no separate article is necessary. I simply do not see any significant coverage of either topic in reliable sources – neither topic meets WP:N. On the other hand I appreciate the significance of the change in that they dispense with the need to make a valid claim. I would suggest editing the lead of the existing articles to note these changes made by FIDE. I also think it makes sense to add standalone entries on the new rules to the glossary of chess.

I note the discrepancy mentioned above with respect to how FIDE and the USCF apply these new rules. What is the situation in other national federations? How universal is the adoption of some version of these rules? This is the sort of information that could go into a separate section as suggested by Quale. Cobblet (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a new newbie to Wikipedia (but not to chess) and have to take things how they come. I can agree to the thoughts by Quale regarding game theory. But then on the other side if this topic is handled there, I don't see why the article could not reference articles defining the terms fivefold repetition and seventy-five-move rule and would have to reference to sub parts of other pages. These rules are standalone rules, and as such per my understanding should be defined on it's own. I don't understand why the anticipation that nobody would read these articles by Bruce Leverett is a reason not to write them. An encyclopedia should be complete. Dlbbld (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)