agreed, though i had already responded to it with:The issue today is that one would certainly not want to see an obvious win frustrated by the 50-move flag being waved by the defender. An example is in KBBKN, where there are now tractable wins deeper than 50 moves.
your papers, i am still digesting them with gusto. very interesting information here. thanks for the ref. i'll have to take some time to go through them and [maybe] give something additional, if anything exists.in this regard, the 50 move rule is, in my opinion (note: this is only opinion) a good one: it likely will have solved more disputes than it has caused. it may be time for it to change to a longer number (100? 200? how many known mates are there that are longer than 50 moves total, anyway? kbnk is already 34!), though i believe the rule itself should not be eradicated.
just a question regarding your statistical paper detailing heinz' work (the entry with ''statistical significance'' in the title on the page you gave in your ref): shouldn't it be redone given rybka? the effectiveness of the endings between the two engines are worlds apart, and rybka without tables can still find wins extremely quickly in endings, even with 12-15 men still on the board. also, it would be a further evidence for that theorem, precisely because the eval functions of the engines are so different. rybka makes a choice early about which move to play then goes about proving whether it is good. fritz allows the data to make the choice for it. very different approach. perhaps the results would also be differnet becuase of that. also, rybka convincingly beats fritz overall at this time. just thoughts and ideas leading to another question i have, namely, is that result with fritz still valid with rybka today?