The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

It doesn't matter how realistic or rare the endgames/positions are, the rules of the game has to take ALL possibilities into account.

1st, of all there's time control. 2nd, the player has the right to keep trying. It doesn't hurt the losing side to move his king around to random squares, but that isn't the main issue. The main issue is when people take advantage of the rule to escape inevitable mates, such as this example from the blitz championship:

Black claims Nb8 was move 50, but he still is mated next move. In this case, the game will end, next move, so there is no reason to claim 50 move rule. The 50 move is rule is to stop obviously drawn games from continuing, not to give draws to losers. The arbiters granted white the win, and rightly so.

Is this the other position? No doubt then it would be only in those two positions that Black would consider promoting to a rook.

As I said in my response to your request for an algorithm, 38% of the KNNKQ positions that could be arrived at by conversion from a KNNKP ending are drawn. (Stat. from Wilhelm/Nalimov.)  

(Nunn describes KNNKQ as "generally drawn", but I have my doubts.)

I know what increments are, but the players are making moves every 5 seconds AT MOST in a blitz game, even 1000 moves would only take like an hour.

My point is a move limit isn't necessary.

No, u can have a universal time limit. 3 min+2 sec increment, but ALSO, the game must end in 2 hours, regardless of the players individual time remaining.

This is a basic rule of chess, like playing on a board with 64 squares, and it makes plenty of sense.

If you can't checkmate your opponent OR capture a piece OR move a pawn (OR force your opponent to) in 50 moves, you don't have a decisive advantage.

Just because you have more material doesn't mean you get the point, you have to execute.  

It would easier to claim you should win a game where you stalemate an opponent, but there is a rule about that.  Or when you have the "decisive advantage" of an extra minor piece vs. the lone king or an extra pawn that could become a queen but is unable to because of opposition, but those are draws as well. 

1. That's my point. If your only given 50 moves, your not given a chance to execute in endgames that take MORE THAN 50 MOVES to force mate. I listed a ton of examples, some of which require over 500 moves, let alone 50. The rule shave to take ALL possibilities into account, and this rule doesn't. Also, players shouldn't be able to claim a draw when they'll be mated next move, but 50 moves have already occurred. They still lost, just took a little longer, but they still lost and shouldn't get a free draw. In  this example:

Even if the move Nb8 was move 50, he's mated next move, so he still loses. This happened in the blitz championship, and the arbiters granted white the win, (cause he hit the clock before claiming or something-serves him right LOL) and RIGHTLY SO.

Well that's chess. Some games do take a long time. Those endgames are what make chess interesting. You can't just say, ohh it's been 20 minutes end it already. NO! They want to play it out. They are entitled to.

@EndgameStudy Does your latest recommendation of a time limit on games offer any difference in practice with a limit on the number of moves (without pawn move or capture)? It seems to me that your stated objections to the 50 move rule would equally apply when the game ends artifically because of time limit. Or am I missing something?

No they are not entitled to - that's the point of your topic. But if you think the rules should change then you need to think of a sensible change. Simply scrapping the 50-move rule is not a sensible change. 

If the 50 move rule affects so few games anyway, what's wrong with scrapping it? So occasionally, once in a blue moon u have a game that lasts 6 hours. At least it's fair for both players.

The players could agree to a draw. It's so easy for white not to lose. Losing on time isn't as artificial as the 50 move rule because losing on time is on you. You thought too long, so you flagged. 50 move rule is declaring a game a draw out of nowhere just because of the number of moves that went by. What's the significance of 50 moves?

It's not fair for a player who has no way to force a win to hang around for six hours while his opponent blunders randomly about.

We're not talking about losing on time. We're talking about your recommendation of stopping the game after 2 hours. What is the significance of 2 hours? What is the practical difference between stopping the game after 2 hours and stopping after 50 moves with no pawn move or capture?

Because there is no fixed time that 50 moves can be played. 50 move can be played very fast or very slow. Time if a fixed thing that says, no matter how many moves have been played the game must end. If 50 moves were played in 10 minutes, and they want to continue, what's wrong with giving everyone more time.

Your objections to the 50 move rule apply just as well to a game which must stop after 2 hours. Or can you name a problem with the 50 move rule which doesn't apply to a maximum 2 hours game?

What if the player wants to claim the draw because he doesn't know how to defend the position accurately and is afraid of making a mistake. In games where it's an obvious draw, like queen vs queen, (except skewers..etc,) the players would just agree to a draw. It's not fair to ruin good games where good players actually want to play it out for 100+ moves, just so some stupid players can't keep moving their queens around randomly.

Yes I can. In this position:

Bd6 was white's 50th move. It took 20 minutes for white to force that position. White then takes the knight and mates black with 2 bishops in 4 more minutes. The game ends in 25 minutes, everyone's happy, even though a grand total of 70 moves have been played without captures or pawn moves.

The point is it's not the number of moves that's the problem. It's the time factor that's the problem. So just say that all games must end in 2-3 hours...whatever. This way endgames that take more than 50 moves still could be played within a reasonable time.