The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

I see. Though I think it would either be no progress at all, or continuous progress. U either know how to do the mate or don't no how to. I think even the most ambitious players would give up if they didn't know how to do it after so long.

If a player made exactly one move's progress in each "no progress" period for 33 moves it would be vanishingly unlikely that this happened by chance. He would have to have a valid method of mating that just happened to be 50 times slower than optimal. In that case he would know how to do it (just not how to do it very fast).

There are perfectly valid methods of playing various endgames that are considerably slower than optimal. KRK shouldn't take more than 16 moves, but in the following example White uses a perfectly valid mating technique, but around three times slower than optimal (against Black's defence).

Mammoth games where the stubborn player is playing randomly would effectively not occur even in the absence of claims under the repetition rule because the probability of surviving n draw claims would decrease exponentially with n. 

White's method is in fact three times slower only against the defence used by Black. Had Black played accurately the method would have been only one and a third times slower than optimal. Here is the same method played from the same position against the Nalimov EGTB.

Why would he make progress only every 30 moves?

See previous post which I was editing at the time of your post. Usually he wouldn't.

We keep cross-posting, my bad.

Takes two to cross post.

So what would be your move limits for each type of endgame. Can't just specify number of pieces, cause 2 bishops vs knight is different then 2 bishops vs bishop.

Keep it at 50 for all endings. If a player makes zero progress or goes backward in 50 moves, he's not likely to do anything whatever the endgame.

That would apply if the progress rule I suggested were adopted.

If the "sliding scale" rule I suggested were adopted instead, then I don't see any problem with using a value based only on the number of men. With the 50 move rule White had 50 moves before a claim could be made whether the ending were KQK or KBNK. It was sufficient for both, but with widely different leeway for errors,

The problem is that it's not necessarily sufficient for e.g. KNNKP so a higher value should be in effect in this endgame. But there is no problem in having a common figure for all 5 man endings so long as it's sufficient for all; you just have even wider differences in the leeway allowed for different endgames. This occurs in individual endgames anyway. If there's a winning position for one side that's not already mate then there's a mate in 1 for the same side, but the winner is still allowed 50 moves to find it.

FIDE have a history of making crass amendments to the rule, the latest, as of 4 months ago, being to remove it altogether without leaving any way for a player with a stubborn opponent to terminate a game that has become useless, other than resigning. (He can't even hope for a repetition, because that rule has also gone.) At one time they would grant an extension to a 100 move rule for the first position shown below, which is mate in 1, but retain the 50 move rule for the second which would prohibit the win against accurate defence (though it is possible under a 100 move rule).

                                                       White to play. FIDE 1952 100 move rule applies.

                                                      White to play. FIDE 1952 50 move rule applies.

  

I think the progress rule is more sensible, because any limits that are fixed for a given endgame impose a constraint on the accuracy of one player relative to the other that are not present in the general game, as in the KRK I showed above.

1st u said have a specific number of moves for each endgame, now your saying go right back to strict 50. 1st of all, it should be at least 100 for all endgames. And don't tell me players will try to continue the game for 10,000 moves. BOTH will give up regardless. They WILL.

This methode is really ridicules. It can be checkmate much faster, For example I give two moves.

All these calculations are unnecessary. Just figure out the longest distance to mate and round up to the next hundred, and make that the rule for that endgame

You can do that. Of course. But I wonder myself is it fair that one endgame for example Mate with a Queen that can be done mostly in a move of 9 you get 50 moves and and other endgame  for example Bishop en Knight you need about 36,  I gues, also give you 50 moves. And other two Bishops against a Knight are so hard that after only one inaccurate move it is not possible anymore to win. And other endgames it is not even possible in 50 moves. Must be not the abillities and the possiblities to make only one inaccurate move not be the same for all this endgames? And therefor one endgame given more moves as the other?

1,000 moves would solve the problem. A nice even figure

Exactly, one inaccuracy in one of those endgames can result in who knows how many moves to correct it.

The problem with this is that the endgames are not as simple as you suggest. KBNK and KNNKP in particular are mostly not winnable OTB no matter who you are unless you have already analysed or learned the endings at least to some extent. See e.g.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1295765

or Ushenina-Girya post #97.

The rules have take account of all strengths of player. A beginner who reaches KBBK will probably be able to work out a mate, but may well not manage a 19 move DTM position in 25 moves OTB against accurate defence.

But why should such levels of accuracy be called for in these endgames? Nobody thinks you need to be so accurate in KQRBBNNPPPPPPPPKQRBBNNPPPPPPPP.

U left out a rook on both sides. Besides, Pawns are involved, so 50 move rule is VOID LOL

I didn't necessarily leave out a rook on both sides (but you're right - I did). The 50 move rule is still in effect with pawns, it just applies only during periods the pawns don't move.

When I saw the handle macer75 I expected them to point out the 75 move rule.