The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

just make exceptions with winning endings, such as the number of moves could be replaced to 50 + n

(im not so sure what n should be, but i think it would be best if it references the number of pieces and their approximate values according to point count) and for drawn endings requiring accurate play, the number of moves should be reduced based on point count, number of pieces, etc.

Maybe he wouldn't have got into this position without the 50-move rule.  I do vaguely remember this game though I can't remember exactly where it was or who was playing.  Probably he just didn't defend it very well.

As I said though, I don't mind extending the 50 move rule in the following way:  when you get to move 50, if either side can demonstrate a forced mate from that point he/she takes the win, otherwise it is a draw.

Clearly the main point of the 50 move rule is top stop ridiculous games that would carry on with people just moving the pieces aimlessly so this extension would still stop that while allowing players who know how to do a longer mate to also claim that.  But trying to claim that a forced mate in 553 moves is valid is ridiculous.  Really that would just be a case that in those 553 moves one or other player would make a mistake, probably through boredom!

I don't even like the idea of extending the rule.  I think that's impractical.  We're talking about tournaments and matches.  Suppose a player claimed at the 50 move point that he could force a win in another 50 or 100 moves.  How much time would the arbiter have to spend verifying that all the possible lines did in fact lead to forced mates?  He couldn't call the game a win unless he verified that it would be won in all variations.  The 50 move rule exists for a reason and that is to limit the duration of games.  Exceptions might seem fair in some cases but it's better not to open that can of worms.  The fact is that if one is unable to mate within 50 moves after the last pawn move or capture of a piece, one gets half a point.  It's not the end of the world.  It's a draw.    

I'm not personally wanting an extension to the rule, I'm happy with it as it is, that's just the only way I would find 'sensible' to extend it.  We have computers nowadays so they can establish pretty quickly if the claimed forced mate is correct in major tournaments at least,

Of course, an arbiter using a computer to test whether a player's claim of having a forced win is correct, sets a dangerous precedent. If that procedure was in force, players would routinely make that claim when up against the 50 move rule whether they are actually capable of winning the position in practice or not.

I didn't say the player can simply claim it is possible, but that they would have to show the forced mate from the position at which the 50-move rule would normally kick in.

The rule is just fine, uncomplicated and equal for both players. I had a guy once trying to mate me with B, N and K and failing. Far in the sense that he proved that he had a gap in his chess knowledge. I forced the endgame because I know that a lot of players do not have a clue how to finish the job.

You need some kind of rule that prevents an endless game - or an eventual time loss - due to a person who doesn't know how to mate with B + N or 2 B's or advance a P in a R+P vs R endgame (Philidor Position will draw but Lucena Position will win), etc.

Since B+N can be done in 32 moves max, a 50 move rule is reasonable.

I know.  You were throwing Endgame a bone.  "Okay, okay!  How about if we give you an extension if you can demonstrate a forced win?"  But nothing will satisfy him short of allowing his September game to conclude in rightful checkmate in December. 

I guess it could give a more literal meaning to chess.com's Death Match series.  Just keep playing until one player dies of old age.

This is from the blitz championship, not from my games! The point is black lost and that's the end of it. Black is getting mated, end of story. Getting Mated trumps the 50 move rule. This is the problem with the rule. If they see that there's a forced mate, they should give some more moves, like in this obvious example.

What about 2 bishops vs knight endgame, which can take 78 moves?

What about Rook+Bishop vs Rook endgame?

What about 2 bishops + knight vs Rook, which can take 68 moves?

2 knights vs Pawn can take 145 moves (pawn might move so..)

50 moves is not reasonable. Even if an endgamecan be done in under 50 moves, it barely leaves any margin for error.

That's not a good strategy, deliberately forcing yourself on to the losing side of a winning endgame. You don't know if he knows. That's a basic endgame and a lot of players probably learn it early on. I wish I was ur opponent cause I know how to do it EASILY, and I would have creamed you and then danced out of the playing room to write that 1 next to my name

You got something wrong, I was losing anyway, and forced to a (losing) endgame were I could at least ask my opponent to show what he kknows.

I think your strategy was rational.  Most players, maybe at all levels, are weakest in the endgame.  If your opponent is not strong in the endgame, he might find it difficult to mate with bishop and knight within 50 moves.  But he shouldn't have much trouble beating you in the middle game up two pieces. 

A lot of things shouldn't exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh you didn't mention you would have lost anyway. NVM

I just tried knight+bishop vs king from a random position on stockfish. Took me 33 moves and 2 minutes 30 seconds. If I can get it down to a minute, should be good

For the 10th time, I'm not talking about useless queen vs queen endgames or Rook vs Rook endgames or knight vs bishop..etc. Unless there are obvious skewers/forks/mates possible in the next few moves, it should just be declared a draw IMMEDIATELY. 

Well, if he was strong enough to win a couple of pieces, I would assume he knew what to do with the advantage - at least in the middle game.  But a lot of players are considerably weaker in the endgame.