The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

I still don't get where they got 50 from. Did they just think 100 is too much, so cut it in half? Was that just an arbitrary decision, an estimation? They couldn't have just based it on 1 endgame, especially given that there are so many more endgames which take way over that.

The max for KQKR is the same as KBNK (all but a move) so it might have been two. Whatever, it's been out of date for at least 60 years.

I think the only way to permanently solve it is a renewable draw period based on progress. That way any length of winning ending can be won.

It has been said  that the very long endgames in the current EGTBs are beyond human comprehension, but I think that's too pessimistic.  Someone will crack them eventually.

King and knight alone can't force the opposing king to the edge or keep the opposing king at the edge in most positions. The blockading knight has to help. Usually by  staying still, but on occasion leaving its post to help. In the latter case you have to be able to re-blockade or mate before the pawn can promote, or at least, if it promotes to a queen, before the queen can move.  (The opponent's pawn can also help by denying access to the square it's on to his king.) 

King and knight alone can, however, force the lone king to a corner (and force stalemate) from an important minority of positions. Before learning KNNKP it's necessary to have a good grasp of KNK. (This has to be by analysis because you're unlikely to find an opponent to practice against; computer programs just give it up as a dead position.)  

For an example you can go through the play here: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/white-to-play-and-mate-in-21

 This book has, I believe, a pretty comprehensive explanation of how to win as White, in a 200 page supplement.  

http://store.chessgames.com/collection-of-chess-studies-by-troitzky.html

 There's not much collected together on how to win as Black. You have to look at the possible conversion endings.  The difficult one is KNNKQ, but you have to start playing it before you get into it, and I don't know if there's a comprehensive treatment of KNNKQ anywhere. 

The best way is to get the Wilhelm chess program with the 3-4-5 man Nalimov databases and get it to give you progressively harder positions and work out how to play them. (Both program and EGTBs are free and can be downloaded without p2p.)

But don't expect it to take a couple of weeks or a couple of months.

(Don't bother playing the ending against Wilhelm without Nalimov by the way. If you give him the knights to play, the first thing he does is take your pawn.)

By half move I mean a ply (https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Ply). With my proposed no progress claim it is better to have an odd number of plies so that one player doesn't always get the first chance to claim.

I SEE, but nah, just stick with whole numbers, too complicated

Then we aren't that stupid, are we?

S'up Chesstroll2! Tell me, what do YOU think of the 50 move rule?

I think it should be a time limit rather than a move limit, regardless of the time control. And if there is a move limit, it should be AT LEAST 100 moves for any endgame. This way, if they want to be able to make 500-1000 moves, they just have to speed up their play, but it at least permits the moves to occur.

I assume you realise that if your time limit idea were implemented, a player in a position where he clearly could not win would play as slowly as possible in an attempt to reach the time limit before the winning player could mate. If he had enough time left on his clock he could force the draw irrespective of how fast the winning player played. The moves would not occur.

I was talking to chess troll2. Maybe the time control would also be reduced on both sides. Also, if he only has 1 Legal move, it would be made IMMEDIATELY without delay

I like your progress idea, seems a little complicated though. I would agree to that as long as the MINIMUM to claim a draw would be 100 moves without progress. 

Do you mean that the time controls would be reduced to the point where one or other players flag would necessarily fall before your time limit were reached? If not you still get the situation described. If so then there would be no point in the rule because it would never take effect.

Would a player in the rest room lose in the event of a check with only one reply under your second rule? 

I said I would go with your progress rule, as long as the baseline was 100 moves, no less.

If someone strongly believes the 50-move rule should be changed, I would understand putting some time into drafting a proposal and submitting it to FIDE for consideration. But I don't understand the endless discussion in a forum that accomplishes nothing. I don't get the obsession. You don't like the 50-move rule. You think it should be changed to 100 moves or eliminated entirely. Okay. That's your position. You should state it and leave it at that. Discussing it in a forum for the rest of your lives won't affect the rule. It's just an enormous waste of time.

The whole point in a chess forum is to discuss chess DUH.

Right MARattigan?

What would be your progress rules for these endgames, MAR?

Queen vs Rook

2 bishops vs Knight

Queen vs 2 knights

Rook vs knight

I wouldn't distinguish between endgames, though it could be useful to have different "no progress" intervals for different numbers of men.

I would say that if the number of pieces on the board were less than eight and the opponent of the player to move has made at least 50 moves subsequent to the last irreversible move and the move (if any) on which the last draw claim was made then he may make a "no progress" claim against his opponent which would result in a draw if successful (determined as in previous posts). The old 50 move rule would be in effect for endames for which no EGTB was available.

This would allow any endgame position that is a theoretical win for one player and for which an EGTB is available  to be won by that player provided he plays with a certain degree of accuracy (which would also depend on his opponent's play).

It would of course require inconsistent levels of accuracy between positions, as the 50 move rule did. For instance under both rules a greater degree of accuracy would be required in the KQK position shown below than in the KBNK position shown (assuming the positions are immediately after a capture or a no progress claim).

                                                        KQK White to move.

                                                         KBNK White to move.

Whatever number of moves were chosen for the no progress period, any winning endgame position could be won if played with sufficient accuracy. But there is a balance to be struck between quick termination of pointless games and unreasonable demands on a players accuracy. For example if the losing player were allowed to claim every half move his opponent would need to play with perfect accuracy irrespective of how bad the defence was.

I think 50 moves would be a pragmatic value for the endgames people can currently play. A 35 move period is probably too small for some positions in KNNKP for example, where a single non too obvious slip could produce a draw from a won position in play against a computer with EGTB access. It could also produce draws where the old 50 move rule wouldn't in cases of inaccurate play.

For example, if the hypothetical KRK I posted earlier had instead materialised at the position after move 6 White would have won with the same method under the 50 move rule, as below:

 But if my progress rule with a 35 move period were in effect White would have drawn if Black claimed under the rule on move 36. In the starting position White has mate in 6 (as in the variation), but only mate in 7 by the time he reaches move 36 (as in the second variation).

Having said that, 50 moves was mainly arrived at as being the same as the old 50 move rule. Probably much more workable would be a 30 move period for any 3 man ending with 20 or 30 extra moves per additional man. 

I don't much like the idea of a fixed 100 move period because if your opponent wouldn't agree a draw in KBKN 100 moves is too much. I'd prefer 50.

The actual numbers would be better decided by endgame specialists.

 And you're saying you would allow 40 moves for the second diagram in my previous post but only 20 for the first. Is that right?