The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

The only difference here is the pawn is moving, so the 50 move rule wouldn't even necessarily apply. You can't change anything about the time, but u don't have to have a move limit. Just have a time limit and whether 30 moves or 500 moves were played, if the game's not finished, a draw.

So probably what would satisfy everyone (except me) would be an amendment to the 50 move rule which says that it's a draw unless the player to move can demonstrate a mate in 1. Everyone happy with that?

Or maybe just make it a 51 move rule which would come to the same thing.

No, even if it's mate in 3, or he finally forced the mating NET.

OK then a 53 move rule. (How do you define when someone has forced the mating net?)

 In this example, pawns move, but the point is that some calculations can be easy even if it takes alot of moves to actually make. Length doesn't necessarily imply difficulty.

Assume white took 30 moves to achieve this pattern. The remaining forcing moves are easy, but since it takes 22 moves to finish, the sum would be 52 moves, even though white figured out how to win. The point of this rule isn't to peanalize inacurate play. It is to prevent useless games from going on.

I'm not sure if that was intended as an answer to my question or not. You objected to the rule being applied if there is a mate in 1, then said 3. Are you saying you have objections beyond that?

If White took 30 moves to reach that position from the last conversion, then he obviously has no idea what he's doing and there's no reason to suppose he could find the remaining 20 moves (actually) to mate.

In fact if he knew what he was doing he wouldn't fall foul of the 50 move rule from the position you show anyway (even if his opponent played more accurately).

In any case his opponent couldn't claim it after 30 moves so what's your point?

This is the slippery slope problem.  Is it reasonable to make an exception to the 50- move rule for a mate in one?  If so, why is it unreasonable to make an exception for a mate in three - or a mate in five?  Sooner or later, we're talking about forced mates in 200 moves.  If there is a consensus (and I'm quite sure there is not) that the number of moves should be increased, say to 75 or 100, then increase it.  But whatever the number is, making exceptions to it will only result in more controversy.  

What I have suggested earlier is that the number should depend on how many men are left rather than being fixed. It would actually drop for 3 man endgames with the scheme I suggested, but would increase beyond four men to allow any winning endgame to be completed so long as the play by the winning side were not too inaccurate. 

I think this is a fundamental point of disagreement. I would say the point is to prevent useless play from going on, whether this because play in the particular position is useless or because one or other player is useless.

I seem to remember reading that it was introduced by professional chess players (akin to professional poker players) in the English coffee houses to protect themselves from having too much time wasted by less competent challengers who could otherwise have limited the amount of money they could make.

I've just realised that I'm out of date.

As of 1 July 2017 the 50 move rule doesn't exist; at least not in the basic rules of chess. 

So long as EndgameStudy refrains from playing in competitions he has his wish.

The example with the bishop and knight endgame, lets say white knew the pattern and how to force mate from it, but it took him 30 moves to reach the position, but he clearly makes the correct moves very fast after he achieves the pattern. He's figured out how to win within the 50 move limit, but EXECUTING the moves ends up over 50. So even if he made some inaccuracies, he still forced a win fair and square. The opponent will start counting the moves when he realizes that white figured out to win and try to claim a draw 2 moves away from mate. I know my mate in 67 is unrealistic and pawns move, but the point was to show that calculating dozens of moves ahead isn't necessarily difficult.

OTB is what I'm taking about! On chess.com no one has time in blitz or bullet to worry about the 50 move rule. Everyone's trying to not flag! If I end up in a queen vs queen endgame and I have 3 seconds and my opponent has 10 seconds, he'll try to flag me, so ill just make all forcing moves, premoves..etc to either wear down his time, or gain some increment time

If you assume he took 31 moves from conversion to reach the KBNK position you showed then with correct play by Black he can no longer win within the 50 move rule - he couldn't mate earlier than move 51. But it's the same if his flag falls with mate in 1 or if your proposed two hour game limit elapses when he has mate in 1.

A limit is a limit and if White takes 31 moves to the position shown he's potentially blown his chances of mating within the 50 move rule. There's no point in having a limit if it's not enforced. White should have played more efficiently. He has a 17 move buffer in  that endgame. He could still make it if Black doesn't put up a perfect defence. That's chess.

In this case he blew it by bad play. If he allowed one of his pieces to be taken then subsequently sees how he could win if he hadn't, you wouldn't say he should be able to start again from the position before he lost his piece.

The problem with the fifty move rule is that in some endings a won position can be impossible to win even with perfect play. 

As of 1 July 2017, he can make it anyway if it's not a competion game.  (I can's say I agree with FIDE's decision here for reasons stated previously.)

That's exactly why the limit shouldn't be 50 moves, or moves at all for that matter. All the rule ends up doing is punishing any tiny mistake that makes the DTM a few more moves? You can't have a rule that test's your ability. It doesn't matter how many mistakes one makes in a game. It's the end result that matters. It's not like white was just making completely random moves for 50 moves and no progress whatsoever was made. Here, he got to the key position, but it just took a little longer. So he made a few inaccurate moves. SO WHAT? He still won. Your telling me it should be a draw because black had to sit there for 10 extra minutes because white made 20 moves more than necessary? If I had mate in 5, but messed it up and mated in 7, I still won, even though I didn't make the "best" moves. Just because you didn't win in the fastest possible way doesn't mean u don't deserve the win!

I know someone who tried winning R vs N in a FIDE game, then he flagged and he lost because of FIDE rules