The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

No it is not fair. WHY are my points obsurd?

The rule is obsurd. Limiting the moves on a chess game. Some chess games are very long. Accept it. Patience.

Give me examples. There were so many points.

I said countless times that players should just agree to a draw in USELESS games, like queen vs queen. If they don't than they're just stupid. That's no reason to ruin complicated games that people want to play out.

You people just don't read. There are endgames that take over 50 moves to win with best play. Their point that the endgames are rare and people wouldn't be able to calculate them, but that's all irrelevant. All rules of the game have to take ALL possibilities into account. I also stated countless times that there should be a time limit in addition to the standard time control. Limiting the moves isn't the solution. A time limit will always solve the problem. Have your 3 min+2 sec inc. or whatever, BUT also say the game must end in an hour. There's no reason to end a game that's only been going on for 20 minutes because there have been 50 moves without a pawn moving or captures. My point that people use this rule to get out of mates next move IS MORE UNFAIR to the player who had a win next move, but got cheated out of it, than everyone else who has to wait 3 more seconds for the game to end.

The players premoving will gain them time via the INCREMENT, so that's wrong. Also, how is limitng the time stupid? That way, the players can make as many moves as they want, but might have to speed up their play a little. That's perfectly fair. Ending the game automatically after 50 moves isn't fair because it might have taken only 10 minutes to make the moves, WHEN THERE IS PLENTY MORE TIME. There's nothing u can do about the time left in a tournament schedule, but as long as the game finishes before then, it doesn't matter if 10 moves were played or 1000 moves were played.

It doesn't matter. The rules have to account for ALL possible games.

No I'm not saying tiny mistakes should take away any possible win, but gross mistakes should. I'd class among gross mistakes in this endgame, getting one of your pieces taken, moving into stalemate and failing to mate within 50 moves.

The median quickest mate in the endgame is around 26 moves. From a 26 move position, if moving into the position you show is a valid course it should take no more than 6 moves to achieve. It should take no more than 13 moves from any position. Taking 31 moves to reach the position is not a tiny mistake.

Even so you are not necessarily drawn. If you outplay your opponent in the remainder of the game even by one move you would still win.  In the sequence you showed both sides played inaccurately, but White played more inaccurately than Black, which is why it took 22 moves instead of 20.

I would say that 50 moves should be sufficient for any 4 man ending. It leaves at least 17 moves spare from any 4 man position even if you play against a perfect opponent.

On the other hand 50 moves is not sufficient for some endings with 5 or more men. There are many KNNKP and KQKNN positions for example that Whire cannot win against perfect defense under the 50 move rule but otherwise could, and even some of the ones that can be won require contortions to stay within the 50 move limit that are probably only suitable for play between computers. 

For this reason I think the 50 move rule should be replaced by something more suitable.

But the answer is not to discard any k-move rule(s) altogether. I have recently downloaded a new version of Tarrasch /Rybka which clearly illustrates the problem with that approach.

The new version of Rybka is broken. If you let it play White in KBNK you get a result like the following:

 Rybka eventually forces a draw by dead position, but this is clearly only to avoid a draw under the 50 move rule. 

Had the 50 move rule not been implemented in the package then Rybka would obviously continue to play ring-a-ring-a-roses in the wrong corner until it has almost no more positions that it hasn't already used twice, at which point presumably it would force me out of the corner and play ring-a-ring-a-roses somewhere else. We're all set to top the million moves.

In the absence of the 50 move rule, what would you expect Black to do under those circumstances? Resign?

U don't understand, 1 mistake can result in spending 5 moves to correct it. So 3 mistakes can result in 15 extra moves to correct it. It seems the real purpose of this rule is to punish people who don't know how to mate with queen vs rook, knight and bishop,..etc. I'm just gonna say this, some chess games take hours. That's what tournaments are about, not to test that someone can mate with knight and bishop within x number of moves.

I think I understand the problem As I said earlier I think the purpose of the rule is to limit the amount of useless play that can occur. That includes cases where people have the material to mate but don't know how. I don't think the time involved is at all relevant - that is limited by formal or informal time controls.

What is your answer to the question I posed at the end of my previous post?

You two need to let FIDE know when you finally reach a consensus.  The chess world awaits.

Would the demonstrated forced win need to stay within the 50 move rule from that point or would he be allowed further extensions?

Would there be a time limit set for producing the demonstration?

Time has everything to do with it. That's the whole essence of the rule. They don't want games going on too LONG. Time is the issue, not moves. If 1000 moves were played in an hour, people wouldn't mind.

People just care about the waiting, not how many moves were played, so the time control plus the absolute time limit (x hours) would mostly solve the problem.

Losing ones queen in the middle game can be a gross mistake, but he can still win fair and square.

See my prior post for your answer, given that u repeated yourself

True. A gross mistake shouldn't cost you the game if you're clever enough to recover from it.

But what's the answer to my question? If you're up against an opponent playing like Rybka in the example in post #363 and there's no 50 move rule (as indeed there now shouldn't be) what are you supposed to do?

See my prior post for your answer, given that u repeated yourself

Your answer was to put a time limit on the whole game. This is not an effective replacement for the 50 move rule.

The 50 move rule is designed to limit only those games that have entered a phase where no progress is being made. A time limit on the whole game would just limit all games (including complicated games that people want to play out).