Answers.Body: <blockquote>
  <p>I liked the 175-move rule and was sorry to see it go, since it
  lightened certain burdens of subjective judgment and of overextended
  hospitality from the shoulders of a tournament organizer.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>You will be pleased to know that FIDE also liked the idea so much that they have implemented a 75-move rule which took effect on July 1 2014</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-19T14:35:25.623Z
Answers.Text: You have to differentiate between the 175-move rule, which declared every game a draw after 175 moves, no matter what happened before and whether one player invoked it or not, and the Fide 75 move rule, which requires the absence of pawn moves and captures for 75 moves and has to be invoked by one player.
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-19T16:46:51.120Z
Answers.Text: @BlindKungFuMaster Actually, the 75 move rule was introduced explicitly for the purpose that it does not have to be invoked by one player (in contrast to the 50 move rule).
Answers.UserDisplayName: JiK
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-19T16:49:37.497Z
Answers.Text: Ah, so it is an addition not a replacement. But still very different from the USCF 175 move rule.
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-19T14:18:58.393Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-16T22:37:56.090Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-16T22:37:56.090Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.Body: <p><strong>EDIT:</strong> As I reconsider the question, I believe that adjournments played a role in the abandonment of this rule, as detailed in my comment below. I understand that this still is not an exact answer to the question and I suppose only the USCF committee would have the answer to that :)</p>
  
  <p>Also, there is the problem of neither player invoking the fifty-move rule, as referenced in your appendix. However, I have never encountered such a scenario in my chess-playing career, although I'm sure it has happened. I suppose such an occasion is extremely rare and the organizer probably would step in.</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>I cannot supply the story given by the USCF on the subject as I couldn't find any specific information online. I can, however, supply my reasoning on why such a rule would be taken out.</p>
  
  <p>In modern chess, there no longer exists (practically) the need to claim a draw. As a result of delay clocks, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule" rel="noreferrer">fifty-move</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_repetition" rel="noreferrer">threefold repetitio</a>n rules take precedence. Therefore, there are no real "judgement" calls to be made as the TD doesn't have to make any decisions regarding draw claims - he simply has to count the number of moves before the last capture/pawn move or see if the resulting position from the claim occurred at least three times.</p>
  
  <p>Therefore, if a game were to progress past 175 moves, there must have been captures or pawn moves within the last fifty. This implies that there is a fair chance that one player can emerge victorious. Even if the game is a technical draw, it is ensured that the game will not progress fifty moves past the last capture or pawn move. </p>
  
  <p>It is for the aforementioned reasons that FIDE re-established the strict fifty-move rule in 1992 even after many winnable positions were proven to take more than fifty moves (without a capture or pawn move) as referenced by Akavall in the comments. Indeed, before this date FIDE had changed the rule to allow certain exceptions, but the number of these winning positions grew so large that it was easier to leave a strict limit in place. This likely influenced the abolishment of the 175 move rule as there were no more exceptions to be had of the fifty-move rule.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-02-11T02:24:11.063Z
Answers.Text: If the payers are playing with 3-1-0 scoring and the game is still uncertain, then both may decide to gamble the 1 for a potential 3 and thus not declare a draw on the count.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joshua
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-06-23T13:03:59.043Z
Answers.Text: I think that you make a valid point.  Nevertheless, your answer answers a slightly different question than the question I had meant to ask.  Insofar as I understand its purpose, a hard limit on the number of moves in a game exists to protect the interests less of the players than of the players' host (the tournament organizer, hall owner, etc.), without requiring the host to interject a subjective, third-party judgment into the game.  Examples of relevant games include Nicolic v. Arsovic, Belgrade, 1989.
Answers.UserDisplayName: thb
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-06-23T15:14:06.860Z
Answers.Text: Well, there exists a significant difference between games played before the 1990s and those in modern tournaments. Adjournments have been for the most part abandoned as a result of generally shorter time schedules. Therefore, there is no real imposition on the tournament organizers as the games cannot surpass the dates of the tournament (it is practically impossible for a game to be played for more than half a day). I disagree with the host having to interject a subjective judgement into the game as the fifty-move rule is more than sufficient in deciding the outcome of a match.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew Ng
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-06-23T01:30:37.203Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-06-23T15:16:49.823Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2013-06-23T15:16:49.823Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew Ng
Body: <p>The U.S. Chess Federation piloted a 175-move draw rule in the fourth edition of its Official Rules.  This interesting rule ended a game automatically after 175 moves, whether or not either player had claimed a draw.  (The rule also included some verbiage regarding a particular kind of chess clock, but it is not clocks that I ask about today.)</p>
  
  <p>In the fifth edition of its Official Rules, the U.S. Chess Federation abandoned the 175-move rule.</p>
  
  <p>I liked the 175-move rule and was sorry to see it go, since it lightened certain burdens of subjective judgment and of overextended hospitality from the shoulders of a tournament organizer.  I suppose that someone else must have <em>disliked</em> the rule or it would not have been abandoned, but at any rate, is there an interesting story behind the abandonment of the rule?</p>
  
  <p>There was <a href="http://archive.uschess.org/docs/pdf/43-56CommitteeRep02.pdf" rel="noreferrer">this (PDF)</a> at the time, but it did not explain much.</p>
  
  <p><strong>UPDATE AND APPENDIX</strong></p>
  
  <p>@AndrewNg has given an interesting, informative answer; but an answer to a slightly different question than the question I had meant to ask.  At the risk of so long an update that few may read it, let me clarify.</p>
  
  <p>Insofar as I have correctly inferred its purpose, a hard limit on the number of moves in a game exists to protect the interests less of the players than of the players' host (the tournament organizer, hall owner, etc.), without stranding the host in the unfair, distasteful position of having to interject a subjective, third-party judgment into the game.  Examples of potentially relevant games include <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1268705" rel="noreferrer">Nicolic v. Arsovic, Belgrade, 1989.</a></p>
  
  <p>Of course, it is possible that I have misunderstood the rule's purpose.  The reason for my understanding however lies in the crucial difference between the 50- and 175-move rules:  the 50-move rule takes effect only when one of the players chooses to invoke it (which the aforementioned Nicolic and Arsovic declined to do); whereas the 175-move rule automatically takes effect, without consulting anyone's subjective opinion in the matter.</p>
  
  <p>In short, the 175-move rule prevents the unlikely but nevertheless mechanically <em>regular</em> (and possibly indeed sportsmanlike) play of the game of chess from forcing a mechanical <em>irregularity</em> when the host's patience runs out.</p>
  
  <p>Another, related purpose of the rule -- a purpose explicitly mentioned in the fourth-edition rulebook -- was to relieve a tournament director of the burden of adjudging "insufficient losing chances" in certain technical circumstances.</p>
  
  <p>I admit that, like @AndrewNg, I too doubt that it was ever the rule's purpose to guarantee that every, theoretically forced mate could be carried to its infinite conclusion.  Indeed, like the 50-move rule, a 175-move rule if enforced becomes a new, mechanical constraint on the theory of the game; such that -- per theory under the rule -- 176-move mates simply no longer exist.</p>
  
  <p>Maybe the new mechanical constraint on the theory is precisely what the fifth-edition rules committee did not like, but I cannot substantiate such a guess.  Thus the question.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-03-22T23:23:59.487Z
Comments.Text: I wonder whether adding a limit to the number of moves might equalize the balance between white and black.  If e.g. it turns out that perfect play by White could force a mate in 153 moves, then having the game be a draw after 150 moves would mean that black could force a draw with perfect play, but any imperfection would let white win.
Comments.UserDisplayName: supercat
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-04-11T19:42:18.933Z
Comments.Text: Re [Nikolic-Arsovic, Belgrade, 1989](https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/records/records.htm). The reason it went on for so many moves wasn't because they declined to take the opportunity for a 50-move draw. It was because at move 167 the game had reached the material balance of KRBkr, and, at that time, that and a few other material balances were [exceptions to the 50-move rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule#History), for which the limit was raised to 100 moves. The game ended in a draw at move 269, shortly after the first opportunity to claim a 100-move draw.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-05-06T03:54:25.200Z
Comments.Text: @dfan What I don't understand about that page is, there is a player on the left side of the screen, but it seems to have the same limited set of games no matter which page I am on - is there some way to have it select a specific number and play through for instance number 316?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-06-06T00:10:00.700Z
Comments.Text: There are some positions that require more than 175 moves to win with perfect play from the superior side (and there are no captures and pawn moves).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-06-07T00:27:53.130Z
Comments.Text: I bet someone on the [USCF forums](http://www.uschess.org/forums/) would know.
Comments.UserDisplayName: dfan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-06-07T03:48:24.897Z
Comments.Text: @Akavali can you give me some information, somewhat, or something that shows your statement, because I do not think so that there are positions which have 175 moves and no capturing or pawn moves..
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ahmad Azwar Anas
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-06-07T14:26:02.557Z
Comments.Text: @Ahmad Azwar Anas For an extreme example, see item number 316 in [Tim Krabbé's Open Chess Diary](http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/diary_16.htm).
Comments.UserDisplayName: dfan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-06-11T12:52:03.543Z
Comments.Text: For the lazy - the above link is a result of computing "7-man" endgame tables, and shows a position from where it takes a minimum of 517 moves to "win" (convert to a clearly winnable endgame), assuming perfect play.  That number is simply mind-numbing.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Daniel B
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-06-23T13:21:25.313Z
Comments.Text: @Akavall: but presumably those would still be drawn based on the normal 50-move rule. I don't think the existence of that kind of position is relevant for this rule (that I had never heard of).
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Tags: <rules><draw><uscf>
Title: The history of the 175-move draw rule
ThreadText: # The history of the 175-move draw rule
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-06-05)
  
  The U.S. Chess Federation piloted a 175-move draw rule in the fourth edition of its Official Rules. This interesting rule ended a game automatically after 175 moves, whether or not either player had claimed a draw. (The rule also included some verbiage regarding a particular kind of chess clock, but it is not clocks that I ask about today.)
  
  In the fifth edition of its Official Rules, the U.S. Chess Federation abandoned the 175-move rule.
  
  I liked the 175-move rule and was sorry to see it go, since it lightened certain burdens of subjective judgment and of overextended hospitality from the shoulders of a tournament organizer. I suppose that someone else must have *disliked* the rule or it would not have been abandoned, but at any rate, is there an interesting story behind the abandonment of the rule?
  
  There was [this (PDF)](http://archive.uschess.org/docs/pdf/43-56CommitteeRep02.pdf) at the time, but it did not explain much.
  
  **UPDATE AND APPENDIX**
  
  @AndrewNg has given an interesting, informative answer; but an answer to a slightly different question than the question I had meant to ask. At the risk of so long an update that few may read it, let me clarify.
  
  Insofar as I have correctly inferred its purpose, a hard limit on the number of moves in a game exists to protect the interests less of the players than of the players' host (the tournament organizer, hall owner, etc.), without stranding the host in the unfair, distasteful position of having to interject a subjective, third-party judgment into the game. Examples of potentially relevant games include [Nicolic v. Arsovic, Belgrade, 1989.](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1268705)
  
  Of course, it is possible that I have misunderstood the rule's purpose. The reason for my understanding however lies in the crucial difference between the 50- and 175-move rules: the 50-move rule takes effect only when one of the players chooses to invoke it (which the aforementioned Nicolic and Arsovic declined to do); whereas the 175-move rule automatically takes effect, without consulting anyone's subjective opinion in the matter.
  
  In short, the 175-move rule prevents the unlikely but nevertheless mechanically *regular* (and possibly indeed sportsmanlike) play of the game of chess from forcing a mechanical *irregularity* when the host's patience runs out.
  
  Another, related purpose of the rule -- a purpose explicitly mentioned in the fourth-edition rulebook -- was to relieve a tournament director of the burden of adjudging "insufficient losing chances" in certain technical circumstances.
  
  I admit that, like @AndrewNg, I too doubt that it was ever the rule's purpose to guarantee that every, theoretically forced mate could be carried to its infinite conclusion. Indeed, like the 50-move rule, a 175-move rule if enforced becomes a new, mechanical constraint on the theory of the game; such that -- per theory under the rule -- 176-move mates simply no longer exist.
  
  Maybe the new mechanical constraint on the theory is precisely what the fifth-edition rules committee did not like, but I cannot substantiate such a guess. Thus the question.
  
  **Tags:** rules, draw, uscf
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: There are some positions that require more than 175 moves to win with perfect play from the superior side (and there are no captures and pawn moves).  
  > **username_5**: I bet someone on the [USCF forums](http://www.uschess.org/forums/) would know.  
  > **username_6**: @Akavali can you give me some information, somewhat, or something that shows your statement, because I do not think so that there are positions which have 175 moves and no capturing or pawn moves..  
  > **username_5**: @username_6 For an extreme example, see item number 316 in [Tim Krabbé's Open Chess Diary](http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/diary_16.htm).  
  > **username_7**: For the lazy - the above link is a result of computing "7-man" endgame tables, and shows a position from where it takes a minimum of 517 moves to "win" (convert to a clearly winnable endgame), assuming perfect play.  That number is simply mind-numbing.  
  > **username_8**: @username_4: but presumably those would still be drawn based on the normal 50-move rule. I don't think the existence of that kind of position is relevant for this rule (that I had never heard of).  
  > **username_1**: I wonder whether adding a limit to the number of moves might equalize the balance between white and black.  If e.g. it turns out that perfect play by White could force a mate in 153 moves, then having the game be a draw after 150 moves would mean that black could force a draw with perfect play, but any imperfection would let white win.  
  > **username_2**: Re [Nikolic-Arsovic, Belgrade, 1989](https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/records/records.htm). The reason it went on for so many moves wasn't because they declined to take the opportunity for a 50-move draw. It was because at move 167 the game had reached the material balance of KRBkr, and, at that time, that and a few other material balances were [exceptions to the 50-move rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule#History), for which the limit was raised to 100 moves. The game ended in a draw at move 269, shortly after the first opportunity to claim a 100-move draw.  
  > **username_3**: @username_5 What I don't understand about that page is, there is a player on the left side of the screen, but it seems to have the same limited set of games no matter which page I am on - is there some way to have it select a specific number and play through for instance number 316?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2014-12-19. Score: 2 | Accepted answer
  
  > I liked the 175-move rule and was sorry to see it go, since it
  > lightened certain burdens of subjective judgment and of overextended
  > hospitality from the shoulders of a tournament organizer.
  
  You will be pleased to know that FIDE also liked the idea so much that they have implemented a 75-move rule which took effect on July 1 2014
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_10**: You have to differentiate between the 175-move rule, which declared every game a draw after 175 moves, no matter what happened before and whether one player invoked it or not, and the Fide 75 move rule, which requires the absence of pawn moves and captures for 75 moves and has to be invoked by one player.  
  > **username_11**: @username_10 Actually, the 75 move rule was introduced explicitly for the purpose that it does not have to be invoked by one player (in contrast to the 50 move rule).  
  > **username_10**: Ah, so it is an addition not a replacement. But still very different from the USCF 175 move rule.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_12 on 2013-06-23. Score: 7
  
  **EDIT:** As I reconsider the question, I believe that adjournments played a role in the abandonment of this rule, as detailed in my comment below. I understand that this still is not an exact answer to the question and I suppose only the USCF committee would have the answer to that :)
  
  Also, there is the problem of neither player invoking the fifty-move rule, as referenced in your appendix. However, I have never encountered such a scenario in my chess-playing career, although I'm sure it has happened. I suppose such an occasion is extremely rare and the organizer probably would step in.
  
  ---
  
  I cannot supply the story given by the USCF on the subject as I couldn't find any specific information online. I can, however, supply my reasoning on why such a rule would be taken out.
  
  In modern chess, there no longer exists (practically) the need to claim a draw. As a result of delay clocks, the [fifty-move](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule) and [threefold repetitio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_repetition)n rules take precedence. Therefore, there are no real "judgement" calls to be made as the TD doesn't have to make any decisions regarding draw claims - he simply has to count the number of moves before the last capture/pawn move or see if the resulting position from the claim occurred at least three times.
  
  Therefore, if a game were to progress past 175 moves, there must have been captures or pawn moves within the last fifty. This implies that there is a fair chance that one player can emerge victorious. Even if the game is a technical draw, it is ensured that the game will not progress fifty moves past the last capture or pawn move.
  
  It is for the aforementioned reasons that FIDE re-established the strict fifty-move rule in 1992 even after many winnable positions were proven to take more than fifty moves (without a capture or pawn move) as referenced by username_4 in the comments. Indeed, before this date FIDE had changed the rule to allow certain exceptions, but the number of these winning positions grew so large that it was easier to leave a strict limit in place. This likely influenced the abolishment of the 175 move rule as there were no more exceptions to be had of the fifty-move rule.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I think that you make a valid point.  Nevertheless, your answer answers a slightly different question than the question I had meant to ask.  Insofar as I understand its purpose, a hard limit on the number of moves in a game exists to protect the interests less of the players than of the players' host (the tournament organizer, hall owner, etc.), without requiring the host to interject a subjective, third-party judgment into the game.  Examples of relevant games include Nicolic v. Arsovic, Belgrade, 1989.  
  > **username_12**: Well, there exists a significant difference between games played before the 1990s and those in modern tournaments. Adjournments have been for the most part abandoned as a result of generally shorter time schedules. Therefore, there is no real imposition on the tournament organizers as the games cannot surpass the dates of the tournament (it is practically impossible for a game to be played for more than half a day). I disagree with the host having to interject a subjective judgement into the game as the fifty-move rule is more than sufficient in deciding the outcome of a match.  
  > **username_13**: If the payers are playing with 3-1-0 scoring and the game is still uncertain, then both may decide to gamble the 1 for a potential 3 and thus not declare a draw on the count.  
  
  ---
  
  