Should the 'Bare King' ruling account for opposing pieces?

Should the amount of moves one has to capture an opposing 'Bare King' before a draw rely on the total point value of their remaining pieces? (excluding in circumstances where those pieces cannot checkmate ie. a knight, and or a bishop) In this case, a queen would reduce the amount of moves one can make before they checkmate the opposing player, or the game ends in a draw, by an amount proportional to their strategic/point value. A pawn would still reset the move limit unless said player with the pawn has sufficient pieces to end the game without moving them.

No

@Martin_Stahl

But why not...

Because the rule is to mostly prevent games going on forever when one player doesn't know how to mate. It's also better to have a single rule that covers all instances, rather than something variable.

"Strategic value" of the pieces is also pretty meaningless. It's a rule of thumb that doesn't take into account the actual value of the pieces on the board. In the final position of the Opera Game, Morphy had 15 points worth of material on the board, while the count and duke had 24 points of material, but the dude with 15 points won. There's no need to complicate the rule.

And what would be the point of that rule?

Fun Fact: Queen and Kings vs King and Bishop Pair is actually winning for Queen and King, however with proper defense it actually takes more than 50 moves for Q and K to win so the endgame is actually drawn

In the tablebase with perfect defense. In practice somebody either gets perpetualed or someone blunders.

I agree with this, but this would only apply if one player had a Bare King, the player with superior pieces would have less total moves they can make before it ends in a draw, thus if the player with only their king can evade the opposing pieces for a set amount of moves (depending on the opposing players pieces) the game may end in a draw. It forces the winning player to think out their moves more and gives the Bare King a better chance.

its just normal and fair always part of the game

ohh come on man. this would add a new confusion