The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

I was saying the baseline for all endgames, not taking into account progress, should be 100 moves. You can have higher limits and progress rules for more complex endgames..etc, but the MINIMUM rule for a draw because of no progress should be 100. It really isn't a big deal, even for knight+bishop endgame. In blitz, there time controls would probably be so low at that point, it wouldn't matter anyway

BTW, how would the tournament directors know the progress of the game before someone makes the claim? If someone raises their hand and says "50-move rule". How do we know if any progress was made during those 50 moves. The director would have to plug all the moves from the scoresheets into a chess program and have a tablebase evaluate that whole algorithm. It would take a while just to evaluate the claims!

You just need to note the position when the endgame appears and at each no progress claim. Deciding whether progress has been made is pretty trivial. Try the KRK example I gave with the 35 move  rule in #636 using Shredder (http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html).

It's simpler than deciding a repetition claim if there is any distance between the repetitions.

Obviously the officials don't need to know whether progress is being made until someone makes a no progress claim.

But how can u do this with so many games going on in 1 round of the tournament? There could be 10+ boards with these endgames in a big tournament

Another interesting question:  Is moving a pawn ALWAYS a form of progress in some positions? Excluding DEAD positions obviously

It never seemed to be a big problem with the 50 move and repetition rules, why should the no progress rule be any different. There are very few claims under the 50 move rule and there would be similarly few claims under the no progress rule. As I already said, it's no more difficult to decide a no progress claim than the other claims.

I was suggesting that the no progress counter be reset by irreversible moves. Obviously a pawn move may or may not represent progress towards an actual mate for one or other side, but wouldn't come into determining progress under the rule.

I should have said in post #640, "note the position after the last irreversible move" rather than, "note the position when the endgame appears ". 

Or maybe, if a game just so happens to end in that exact tablebase position with mate in 545, it should just be declared a win lol

I think that may be the case in computer games where both machines have EGTB access. It was certainly suggested.

But in that case it would be a draw under the 50 or 75 move rules, so I'm not sure how that pans out if it's a tournament game. I don't think there are any 7 man DTZ50 EGTBs. I believe the Lomonosov tablebases are DTM?

DTM would be what is needed to check under the progress rule.

Yes there are. They know the longest wins, just not the percentage of wins.

Here are my main points against the 50 move rule. I know some of have been agreed to or refuted, but I just wanted to sum them up.

1. Disputes over counting the moves waste time, which is excatly what the rule is designed to prevent.

2. Countless Endgames take well over 50 moves to force mate with perfect play; rarity, or the ability of a person to calculate the moves is irrelevant, as the rules have to take all possibilities into account.

3. Players have the right to try to win without unnecessary pressure from a move limit.

4. Players in a losing position or are about to be mated next move will use the rule to get a draw out of a lost game. 

5. Fairness: The objective of the game is to checkmate your opponent, not make accurate moves every move.

6. If the rule is about peanalizing inaccuracy, why should a player who mated in 48 moves win, but a player who mated in 53 moves shouldn't? They both successfully mated their opponent.

If they didn't agree to a draw:

1. You could skewer the queen and force a draw

2. Maybe he'll make a mistake and then you end up winning!

3. 100 moves isn't that long, especially when making random, useless moves

The real funny thing about people who continue in endgames like this:

That one who wants to continue has to be careful NOT to get a draw, let alone hope for cooperation from the opponent.

E.g. with White to move:

 but 100 moves is very long especially when making mindless moves. Most full games don't even last that long. And if you make random useless moves in an endgame like KQKNN you just throw away a half point quickly. Chess is definitely not about making random moves.

Yep, many drawish positions usually can be forced in to draws very quickly. Not as much with rook vs rook endgame

I think also in KRKR. Try a position if you like. More problematic is KBKN where neither side has a mate threat.

The removal of the repetition rule as of 1st July changes things of course. If it were Black to play in the above diagram how would you then force a draw?

@652

If it's just randomly checking the king until he agrees to a draw, then it's not hard. I mean you don't have to think that much over any move, unlike a Rook+Bishop vs Rook or Rook vs Knight endgame.