The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

That 22,000 post one is a word game.

If the rule was at least 100 moves (still think time limit would be better), It wouldn't be as much a big deal. I'm really curious to how they got 50. They just estimated I assume, but they didn't consider endgames that take many more moves than that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule

I just found an example on that page of the problem with the 50 move rule:

Black got out of a mate cause of the 50 move rule. This is not useless, endless play. The game is obviously going to end in 2 moves, but he claims the rule as if there's no progress occuring LOL. That's the problem with the rule, people taking advantage of it to escape a lost position and declare a draw on a technicality (though I disagree with the length as well). This game was obviously wasn't going to continue another 100 moves or 2 more hours. It would end in only 2 moves, taking another 7 seconds.

Another stupid thing about the rule is that players in the endgame will, instead of worrying about what moves are actually better, they worry about what moves avoid captures, so they can satisfy their 50 move claim, even if they end up losing even faster if the game continues.

You are free to create a chess variant game without the 50 move rule. But please, do not call it classic chess.

It is not a variant. I'm saying the 50 move rule isn't a rule of the game, such as castling or en passant, it is a regulatory rule. I'm saying the 50 move rule shouldn't exist in normal chess. It would not be a "variant" whatsoever. 50 moves going by doesn't not indicate insufficient material, stalemate, a dead position, or repetition, therefore it shoudn't be a draw.

This is exactly the way the Syzygy DTZ50 EGTBs work.

Well, that's why the rule is a problem. Instead of playing chess, players worry about how many captures they've made, instead of playing the best moves possible.

No argument that the rule is a problem, just that the problem with your proposed solution dwarfs the problem it tries to solve.

A sensible approach now we have EGTBs would be to make it a progress rule. After 50 moves without a refused e.p., a loss of castling rights, a pawn move or a capture either player would be able to claim lack of progress. If no DTM EGTB were available or consultable for the material on the board that would be a draw as at present, otherwise a third party - the arbiter for a tournament game - would check the initial and final positions against the EGTB to see if progress had in fact been made by the claimant's opponent. If not the game would be declared a draw. If the opponent had made progress then the current position would become the new initial position and the move count for the progress rule would be reset to zero. A higher limit (say 500) could be set for positions with more than seven men.

In your hypothetical KBNK scenario the game would continue (so long as the KBNK position didn't already materialise with mate in 1 or 2 moves) and you should never reach a second progress claim. In an "impossible" KNNKP position if you are actually making progress toward a mate the game would also probably never reach a second progress claim, but if it did the same procedure would apply. In the case of KBKN the phase would start with a theoretical draw and end with a theoretical draw at the claim so the lack of progress claim would be accepted.

Only if you failed to make a single move's progress towards mate in 50 moves of play would you lose a win. 

Ideally adequate limits would also be set for the cases where EGTB's have been constructed but are not available for consultation.

And I disagree with you here. I perceive the 50 move rule as the integral part of the canonical set of classic chess rules, because I learned these rules as a whole.

Chess with different rules is chess variant, not normal chess.

The basic rules of chess (normally understood as the content of the BASIC RULES section of the FIDE handbook) do not as of now include the 50 move rule. The rule was deleted on 1st. July this year, though it is retained in the COMPETITION RULES section.  There have been other periods in the past when no rule similar to the 50 move rule has been officially applicable to all games.

Although a rule similar to the 50 move rule has mostly been in operation for all games for the last five centuries or so, the number 50 has been changed in a variety of ways for different endgames by the governing bodies.

So I don't think the deletion of the rule or a change in the number 50 for different endings would be adequate grounds for saying you no longer have normal chess. If you think it is then  chess today is already not normal chess as of 1st. July this year.

EngameStudy's proposal for a rule declaring games drawn after some fixed time limit are, I would say, a totally different matter. Chess with that rule would be distinctly different and, judging by, reactions in this topic would find few converts.

Personally I don't think FIDE have thought it out properly. They're more worried about the smooth running of their tournaments than about the game.  But they have the whip hand.

FIDE isn't the ultimate authority.

If FIDE changes any rule, then FIDE chess is no longer classic chess.

It's nice to have general agreement on the rules. If FIDE isn't the ultimate authority then who?

The 50 move rule went through many changes before the formation of FIDE, so it would be hard to say exactly what classic chess is in relation to the the exact form of this particular rule.

Is that Polar_Bear as in a big white thing or as in an explosive cocktail by the way?

1st of all I Never said a "Fixed Time". I said how ever much time was left before, say a half hour before the next round, which is comp!etely independent of the number of moves played. If u allow them p!entry of extra time, then they'll probably have even more than 50 moves, so that's even better than strictly limiting to 50 moves. Maybe 150 or 200 moves can now be played in the x hours remaining. What's wrong with that. And if there's almost no time left than they wouldn't be able to implement the 50 move rule because they'd STILL have to cut the game early. The time rule is just giving them whatever time is available, which ANY move limit would still be bound by. There has to be the time to play whatever number of moves. If there's 10 minutes left in the schedule, then whether 35 moves or 250 moves went by in those 10 minutes, they'd STILL have to end the game regardless, but at least the time rule would give them a chance to play the 100-200 moves if they were able to.

1. If the start times for the rounds in a tournament and the available hours for the playing venue are published in advance then the available playing time between the start of any round and the start of the next round (less half an hour) is fixed. This means that your suggested time limit would be fixed for any particular round of any particular tournament. I didn't intend to suggest you were advocating a universally applicable time limit - such a limit that would apply equally to inter-club OTB tournaments and correspondence chess tournaments using paper postal sevices would clearly not be feasible.

2. A fixed time limit (per round) is patently not completely independent of the number of sensible moves that can be played.

3. The longest decisive chess game ever recorded was Rybka (obviously not my broken version) v Nakamura 2008 at 255 moves. Had your rule allowed time for 200 of these moves it would have enforced a draw in the following position:

                                      Rybka v Nakamura 2008. Position after 200...Kg3.

                                                        White (Rybka) to play.

In this position it is clear that (a) Nakamura has an overwhelming advantage and (b) Rybka will never have an opportunity to claim under the 50 move rule.

Your rule would have robbed Nakamura of a victory that probably had already taken 20 hours of effort up to the point that it declared the game drawn

4. With a five hour session per round your time limit would probably allow no more than 100 sensible moves in a game.

You give an example where White is robbed of what should clearly be a victory in KBNK. Wikipedia gives five examples of this endgame from recorded games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_and_knight_checkmate#Examples_from_games.5B14.5D. Only one was drawn under the 50 move rule and in that example (see post #97) Ushenina was arguably incapable of winning. Had your rule applied on move 100 in these games four of the five would have been declared drawn. Mika Karttunen and Judit Polgár (in her famous blindfold game) would both have been robbed of their wins. Nobody was robbed by the current 50 move rule.

5. They don't have to cut the game early. If it's a Swiss system tournament, adjudication can be used to determine the pairings for the next round. The game can be adjourned and played in time allotted  later.

But time doesn't change. It would go by what ever time is left over, whether it is 1 half hour of 3 hours, because the 50 or 100 moves in a move limit would still have to be played out before the next round. It's not like they let the games continue and hold up the tournament.

See point 5 above.