The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

For the people who are saying that players won't agree to a draw in a position like this:

All the player who wants the draw would have to do is move their king around randomly without even thinking. It wouldn't exhaust anyone. I'd be laughing at my opponent the whole time as he makes random moves also! I'd be happy to do it with 1 sec on clock w/ 5 sec delay.

This endgame you can lose only if you are completly in full cooperation with the opponent.

For example. 

BTW, what is the EXACT nature of the 50 move rule. 50 consecutive moves, after no pawn moves, no captures...What about castling? Double  check? Moves that could make progress in the game without captures or pawn moves. For example:

Assume in this position white can castle (no way to prove he can't), and playing 0-0-0 will be the 50th move without capturing, BUT the rook will now be taken next move? This is a win for white.

No because in this case this is not possible. If white can still castle it means that his King and Rook did not make a move at all. So then Black must have took one of the white pieces that made so many moves without taking something. Or with Rxb2 or with Kxd7. So black must have took something the very previous move before this position arise. So then white can Always win with 0-0-0 because black took on the previous move.

1. Being able to defend KR KRB is part of the game. How do we know he'll defend accurately without any time pressure anyway. If he can't defend accurately, he should lose. The player shouldn't make any fatal error if he knows how to defend. Who says the opponent won't let his rook get skewered and now he might actually lose?

2. 50 is too small to tell anything. I don't get why it's not 100. Even 75 isn't enough for many endgames.

3. The main problem with the rule is that people try to claim AFTER they already made a fatal mistake, like in that blitz championship game I showed. THAT'S the main problem with it!!!

4. People make fatal mistakes on time pressure all the time. It happens.

@RubenHogenhout That [EDIT what you suggested in post #145, your last post cross posted with mine] was tried for a time by FIDE maybe 15-20 years back, as at least one other person pointed out above. I think the first exception to the 50 move rule was for KNN vs KP with the pawn behind the "Troitsky line", for which 75 moves were allowed. Then more standard endgames had to be added as tablebases were developed and more endgames were shown to require more than 50 moves to win. And these exceptions mounted up to the point where it was unworkable.

@EndgameStudy You have put your point of view many times in this thread, but you haven't dealt with everyone's objections. I'd still love to know how you think the quite commonly occurring endgame KRB vs KR, which is drawn but very difficult to defend correctly, should be handled if you scrap the 50 move rule. In my opinion that would give the stronger side carte blanche to continue playing on until the defender finally makes a fatal error, and this is unfair. Do you disagree with me?

I agree in this point with you.  The R plus B aganst R is theoretical draw although hard to hold. But still if it is theoretical a well known draw then the 50 moves rule must be kept is my opinion because there is no forced mate or win. Only for the theoretical endgames like NN versus pawn for example and there are of course more. That are known won and there is a forced mate available. Then I think it is fair that you have a chance to show if you master this endgame in a bit more moves. Lets say 75 or 100.  I think this is fair and I did not know that this was allready tried. But I think they should have kept to this. And make a list from this kind of endgames. That are won but need more moves to win. I agree that the list is maybe never complete. And new endgames are discovered every time. But I think it is better and more fair to have a list that is maybe incomplete and a bit more complicated then a single 50 move rule. Then to have no such list at all. Such a list can extended now and then with one more endgame that is found and also as seen worthy to add to the list. I see no problem in that. That the rules so now and then are adjusted. It is adjusted for other reasons so now and then too. For example the time controle that are different now, with different clocks and increment for example. The under  couvert and play out later also disappeared and so on.  So changes are no problem and belong to development is my opinion.  Sorry I did not read all the comments. But some threats are rather long and I do not Always find time to read them all.

You misunderstood, I agree that endgames that require well over 50 moves should be allowed to contiune. I'm just saying that there are so many of those endgames, with all the different piece combinations, that it would be ridiculous to try to determine a specific number of moves to each of them. It's hard enough to count 50 moves, let alone know the exact number of moves for each type of endgame!

If the player eventually fails to defend, that means either 1) the position was a win for rook+bishop initially, or 2) he didn't defend accurately. In both cases, he should lose. U can't just say it's a draw because it took a certain number of moves before he made a mistake. If it's about fairness, then even in games that last 300 moves, one could say, he lost because he was tired and missed that tactic..etc, even if pawns were moves and pieces were taken. Just because a pawn was moved or a piece was taken doesn't mean the endgame isn't still extremely complex. I think all endgames on this list should be given 1000 moves, given that the longest of them takes up to 553 moves.

I think it is well possible and not so difficult. For example now checkamte with a Queen need mostly between 6 or 12 moves? I don t know exa tly but lets say something like that. Rook takes about 12 or 18 moves?  and a Bishop and Knight takes about 36 moves?  Now in all this cases you get 50 moves. Thus lets say NN vs pawn needs about 70 80 or 90 moves  I don t know then for example you give this endgame 100 moves. Then same as two Bishops again a knight or  a Queen against a Bishop and a Knight.  A Queen against NN is drawn so this may stay 50 moves.  And so you can exstand this list with 100 moves in stead of 50in this catagory. The 500 positions I do not threat in any case. Because They are one far to complicated to understand for humans , even for GMs.  And they occur even much more seldsom as the other endgames. So I would make the list only for understandable endgames that are practical and can occur so now and then and are to master at the same time. This 500 moves positions are not realistic.

So basically ending the game with a draw after 50 moves is unacceptable, but losing a 'winning' game on time on move #857 would be fine.