Is this a mistake?

@Sarg0n
We don't have to use tablebase. I am talking about obvious cases of few limited endgame situations. Not about many tablebase endgame cause there are over millions of them.
And the game you showed is clear reason of being played on purpose. Even if both players reject, it's clear sign of played deliberately. There's no way a 2200 player would play like that. Even a beginner would not play like that.

If you want any endgame that cannot be won by force to be drawn, do you want a draw for Q v R? Because in some cases it takes more than 50 moves to checkmate.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #21:
> @Sarg0n
> We don't have to use tablebase. I am talking about obvious cases of few limited endgame situations. Not about many tablebase endgame cause there are over millions of them.
> And the game you showed is clear reason of being played on purpose. Even if both players reject, it's clear sign of played deliberately. There's no way a 2200 player would play like that. Even a beginner would not play like that.

Define „obvious“. For me or for you?

@VihaanDumir
No. Queen vs Rook is a known win for Queen. For known few pieces endgames that favour a win for one side, players have to play till they reach result or 50 moves (draw rule) whichever comes first.

@Sarg0n
Obvious in the sense that few pieces endgames where one side has known victory irrespective on length, then it's no draw and play has to go on. If neither side has known victory then it's a draw.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #14:
> @Sarg0n
> I want FIDE to change this rule especially regarding forced mates.
> The rule should be rephrased and changed to that 'unforced mates in endgame should be considered as draw'. If no, then it clear shows that Knights side wants lone king to blunder or wait till 50 move to draw by 50 move rule or wait for timeout.
> I agree with that but there are limited of such kind and won't make significant changes in other cases on changing rule.
> Like a bishop vs bishop endgame with opposite coloured checkmate should also be called draw. Even a complete newbie won't blunder like that to get checkmated.

You say you want FIDE to change the rule. Here is where you can submit a change proposal:
rcc.fide.com/form-of-loc-change-proposal/

So in, say, a drawn KRPvKR position, we shouldn’t test the weaker side’s skill in converting it into the Philidor position and defending it, but instead declare it a draw outright?

@rdaysky
Yes, that's what exactly I wanted to tell all of you. The players should not be judged on skill in an endgame of 5 or less pieces. It should be assumed that both are equally skilled and result should be announced by arbiter on seeing position. R+P vs R is a known draw, hence it should be declared draw outright instead of playing it out.
Reason being if a 1500 plays with Carlsen, such endgame wouldn't be reached if Carlsen's opponent is low skilled. Rating of players don't matter, their level of play or playing style or playing system matters.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #28:
> @rdaysky
>... R+P vs R is a known draw, hence it should be declared draw outright instead of playing it out.
> ...

Lol.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_and_pawn_versus_rook_endgame

@Sarg0n
I know it depends on position. Just I forgot to mention.
Hence according to position, if either side has advantage and can be converted to win, then it should be declared a win to the side by arbiter. Else, with perfect play if the game is draw, then it should be declared as a draw.
I now found criteria to define my original words. 'An endgame of 7 pieces or less should solely be dependent on perfect play irrespective of rating of players'
The logic follows the fact that an amateur won't get such position against a titled player based on its own skill right from the start of game without using any external assistance.