The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

Here's a list of only some endgames from tablebases that easily require well over 50 moves WITH BEST PLAY to force mate:

2 Bishops vs Knight

2 Knights vs Pawn

3 Minor Pieces vs Rook

Rook+Minor piece vs 2 Minor pieces

Queen+knight vs Knight, Bishop, Rook

Queen+Knight vs 2 rooks

...ETC...

Bro, ther is a guy here complaining that STALEMATE is a draw, which I completely disagree with. Stalemate should, and can only be a draw. I just don't think it's right when someone will mate someone in a few moves, and then the loser tries to count the moves and claim a draw. The point of this rule is to prevent useless ongoing games, but if the game WILL END-(and don't give me this, ohh he won't see the mate in 2 crap), there is no point in utilizing the rule. He will be mated, game over, end of discussion. And if the 50 move rule affects so few games anyway, why is it even enforced? I despise FAKE Draws on technicalities, such as it was move 54..etc. WHO CARES? the games over, so it took 5 extra seconds to make 2 extra moves. Big deal. Ironically it takes more time arguing about the moves and whether or not it should be a draw than it does to make the 3 extra moves and finish the game.

Because why should it be a draw when I'm not even given a chance to try to win? It's not valid. It's basically saying u can do wahtever u want to the rules of chess cause ur impatient. If you're so worried about the tournament schedule and player's being tired, then DON'T MAKE THE TIME CONTROLS 3 HOURS ON EACH SIDE!!! That's what happens. Then the players finally get into the endgame, and u say, ohh it's taking too long, well guess why?

Yeah it is, because you're just MIS-USING THE RULE! U know the game will end, and u try to count the moves and pretend it's a draw cause u know you will be mated in 2. That's like letting a serial killer out of prison because the DNA analyzer forgot to put his middle name on the paper.

I think u guys need to look at some examples to see what I'm talking about:

 I think the ending K+R+B vs K+R is a good example of where the 50 rule move is a good thing. Basically the weaker side has a theoretical draw if starting from a reasonable position, but it's very difficult to defend accurately and a slip-up can easily lose the game. Without the 50 rule move, the stronger side can play on indefinitely with no risk of losing until the weaker side finally slips up. (And even top players can and do slip up with the defence.)

Another point: examples of other endgame types like the ones given by @EndgameStudy above, where the stronger side has a won position but the fails to deliver it in the 50 moves, are ones where the defending side will have defended very well to hang on that long. Is it not reasonable to reward that sturdy defence with a draw?

That's not chess! There's no reward for "holding on". You can't just say "ok, i've held on for 40 moves, now I'll just blunder everything and claim a draw. You also don't automatically win when u take your opponent's queen. That just makes it EASIER to win in the end, but U HAVE TO MATE HIM TO FINISH THE GAME! Also, what if the next move, the winning side had a tactic that would win. It's not like seeing how long u can hold our breath. Number of moves is irrelevant to how someone played until the end! Also, there are NO positions in knight+bishop endgames where king can force draw (unless bishop+knight were forked to begin with). It's a guaranteed win for the knight and bishop.

Yo, I got a GRANDMASTER to post on my forum topic!

If you fail and the king slips trough, and walks to the safe corner yo could start all over again and maybe get it right after ca 60 moves, if wasnt for the 50 move rule. I think its a good rule.

Here's an interesting illustration. The player of White, who clearly had not done that homework, was the Women's World Champion at the time this game was played. Given her less than impressive performance, I certainly don't have any problem with her opponent earning her half point here!

Brian, there is no technique there, only moving around the figures.  There is a very specific way how to push the king from one corner to the other, if you don't know it you will have huge problems.

Here one of my games, full of blunders from my side, but also from my opponent. I could use the technique, but it was much easier because there were some pawns around (but he lost them all and I could keep my). The game is interesting because the stalemate problem.

I could for sure avoid him to get in the right corner, but the way how the game ended was much funnier!

@torrubirubi Fortunately I do know it. I practised several years ago on a rival online chess site which had a bot for playing that ending. My point is that the Women's World Champion didn't know.

Here you can learn mate with K, N and B against K

https://www.chessable.com/chess-endgames/

In the book "100 Endgames You Should Know" you have a very nice technique, which I am using.

In the book "Essential Endings: Mating with B + N" you have another technique. This book is for free. 

Why to learn this? You will get better in the coordination between these figures, which is not that easy for most players.

The only way I could see FIDE changing the rules is if they made the 50 move into whatever the minimum amount of moves required was to checkmate for that material. 

As tested by an engine.

Guys, I know how to mate with knight and bishop. I did it against stockfish multiple times at maximum level and was able to do it in 37 moves most of the time, occasionally 40. Knight and Bishop mates aren't a problem for me, that was just an example. I'm just saying for people who don't know how to do them, or aren't good at it, 50 moves is cutting a little too close, GIVEN that it can take up to 33 MOVES with PERFECT play. Also, the endgames like 2 bishops vs knight, which can take up to 78 moves. You are basically immediately declaring endgames with 2 bishops vs knight a DRAWN in SOME games, where both players play very accurately. True, most people can't calculate hundreds of moves ahead, but that's irrelevant. The rules of chess have to take ALL Possibilities into account. And if u say it only affects .001 percent of games, why is everyone saying it's a must-have?