Notes on the 50 move rule

The official FIDE handbook page 13 Article 9 states section 9.3 provides the procedure for governance of what we refer to as the 50 move rule:

The game is drawn upon correct claim by player having the move, if: A) he writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or 

B) the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

As of 1988 it was actually 75 moves only in specific positions such as

1) K/R/B vs K/R

2) K/N/N vs K/p

3) K/B/B vs K/N

This changed in the 90s to reflect public sentiment. There was never such a rule for K/N/N vs K as happened in Kotov - Najdorf in Zurich 1953. In fact blood was bad enough between the players that Kotov insisted on playing on, but accepting the draw. Eventually he claimed reportedly that a Russian player had found mate in such a position. In fact as we know King and 2 Knights can only mate by opposing idiocy. Kotov then admitted it was false and Najdorf wondered how he had been so easily duped.

But imagine today in a strange era where such information may be brought to the board during a tournament via prior knowledge or induction, it may be acquired on the go spur of the moment, or it may remain simply be too complex to calculate. 

Walter Browne (6 time US Champion) accepted a one time challenge from Unix developer Ken Thompson to mate a computer Q vs R. He knew the ending and regarded it as simple, yet he failed. This should have been mate several moves prior to the deadline but Browne had never seen the new fangled defense tactics. There are tricks available today that we see now that we might only have thought of through extraordinary care and time as of 20 years ago. This means inductive over the board is probably a failed method. These endgames have to be known, but according to newer tactics the existence of which havent been known for more than a decade or so. Syllogism rather than pure induction.
Yasser explains that teaching techniques changed since his youth (chase the king to the side with the rook close by, bully the king and skewer it) to now (where sometimes you must counterintuitively separate the rook to avoid skewer). Older players such as Keres or Lasker never would have done it this way.

Does the new way preserve a draw?
Only dependent on the 50 move rule or ineptitude of the aggressor.

Occasionally a humorous event takes place that a machine or maybe a superhuman determines say mate in 56 and stubbornly insists that such will be achieved. As programmer and lichess admin Jacob Wilkins points out this type of thing happens regularly now when one such as Alphazero or Mephisto realizes a mate in 238 such as QRB vs KNN or some similarly outlandish number. I think the longest ever calculated was around 550 moves.
Historically the evolution is breathtaking. In 1913 in New York when asked about calculation Capablanca told Jaffe “10 moves ahead” and Jaffe replied “one but it is always the best one”. The anecdote is amusing but times have changed in a scary way. Surely when US Championship players say they are thinking 15 or so moves ahead this is true in the more advanced era. In open positions perhaps less. But in positions with fewer pieces on the board as many as 25. I believe this question was asked both to Magnus and Garry with similar responses.

Should the 50 move rule be extended in certain situations over the board based on this evolution of the game? Personally I am glad 50 exists online because I discovered that a recent opponent tried to deliver mate in 56 only to realize the impossibility at the very end. His calculation was impressive nevertheless!

I saw an unnamed IM forget B and N mate at Chicago Open and I saw an 1800 succeed in a 6 hour game vs his 2200 opponent. Schools of training may play a role and precision is definitely key.

What do you think of the 50 move rules?

Obviously mention is made of lengthening but due to more precise techniques is there any position or rating group at which rules should adapt? Shorter sounds impossible.

How about the fact that a capture or pawn move restarts the process?

For this matter are there any other examples of draws the rules of which should or could change? Stalemate and three move repetition are some. Are they good as they are?Prearranged draws have always been a problem, 12 moves in an innocuous subpar line and good game (either for prizes or for early lunch, etc).

Oddly in your database you may encounter games where repetitions went on and on, or where more than 50 moves pass for draw, etc. These usually indicate a circumstance in the tournament hall, often of emotion or forgetfulness.

Roycroft continues to believe some endgames need more time to avoid total moves draw. He is not alone. Tablebases definitely corroborate. But who can learn them? That generation may be on the way!

We never need fear it happen that chess is thought to be a draw with perfect play. Psychology always offers tactical distractions to prevent their opponent from achieving it. Rules have adapted from the Asian predecessors to Syria, Andaluz to the rest of Europe. They may continue to as need arises.

Share your thoughts or experiences if you have any reaction to 50 moves, draws or chess rules of other kinds.

Good luck in your games!