Would a 75 Move Rule be better than a 50 Move Rule?

In other words, your example with the starting position is completely irrelevant as it's likely to be a made up game between the two players.

Yes, I'm saying that the 50 move rule should stand. OK, if there's a general agreement to change it to 75 or 100, I'm fine with that, too (although most tournament organizers would probably gnash their teeth).

The point is that I don't think there's any merit in having a different number of moves depending on the position, because where do you draw the line? (I've already shown an entirely plausible position which is won in 549 moves with 503 moves without captures or pawn moves.) Nor do I think there's any merit in rewarding one player extra moves on the basis of him 'making progress' (or not awarding him more moves if the arbiter thinks otherwise). As Nunquam points out, how do you define progress? Also, as yourself has pointed out, we're making mistakes all the time when playing, so why should it matter more, or less, at the end of the game, and why should it matter more or less depending on whether you're winning or losing? There's no logic at all to this. We could easily see a situation where one player was outplaying the other, and then blundered, ending up with K v KBN. Should s/he be treated more leniently as a result of that? After all, s/he was winning for the first 70 moves of the game. In my case, it was the other way around. My opponent played better than me most of the game, and I grabbed the last chance I saw of saving the game, asking him to perform the B+N mate. Should I be punished for the fact that my opponent didn't know how to do it?

I don't know about you, but a great deal of the fascination of chess lies in the fact that you can throw away many hours of hard, painstaking work where you've slowly accumulated one advantage after another. It's a game of brilliancies and blunders, and I can't see anything wrong with tenacious defence being rewarded just as ferocious sacrificial attacks and strategical masterpieces are.

@BonTheCat

And why should the claim be adjudicated on the basis whether the position was won or drawn when the claim period commences? As we both agree, blunders are part of the game, so why should we favour one side over the other towards the end of the game?

You're not favouring either side, you'r just rejecting a no progress claim if the claimant has, during the claim period, managed to transform a position that was a theoretical loss for him into a theoretical win or draw or a theoretical draw into a theoretical win or otherwise if he has changed the distance to mate in his favour should the theoretical result be the same at the beginning and end of the period.

If he hasn't the claim succeeds in the same way a draw under the 50 move rule would.

The players may not know who is winning or losing and then would be no wiser should the claim fail.

You misunderstand me: let's say that on exactly the 50th move without capture or pawn moves, one player blunders away his rook in a R+B v R (through a two or three move combination ending up in a won R v B ending), and the player with rook claims the draw (because he hasn't seen it). The arbiter consults the table base, seeing that it's now a win for the other side. Should the arbiter then reject the claim on that basis? If not, why not?

Once again, why punish mistakes harder towards the end? Doesn't make any sense. Also, define progress. My opponent was probably within 10 moves of mating several times, but failed to find the right ideas from then on. Shepherding the lone king to the edge of the board is the easy part. Did he make progress? Yes, of sorts, but he was still just aimlessly pushing me from one corner to the next. He wasn't actually making any real progress. For how long should you allow one player to try before you say enough's enough?

Also, if the arbiter rejects the claim for one side having consulted the tablebases, that's information for the other player: s/he will now know there's a win in there. I cannot see why one player should be helped in this way.

Note that the rule is 50 moves of no captures AND no Pawn moves (FIDE rule (9.3b, USCF Rule 14F).

Personally, I think 50 is plenty.  Players in OTB games with no increment or delay on the clocks can stop the clocks and and ask the tournament director or arbiter to declare a draw due to "Insufficient losing chances" (USCF Rule 14H - I think FIDE allows arbiters to rule the same way).  There have been a couple times when I was a USCF Tournament Director and it was clear that the person with the most time remaining was not trying to win, but was simply hoping his opponent's clock time would expire. In those cases I ruled it a draw and got an angry response by the guy with the most time and had to show that player where the rule is in the rulebook.

Of course, the player must make the claim by him/her self before the clock expires and must be on the move when making it.

There are certain combinations of pieces where mates take a certain amount of moves and in tournaments they allow twice as long. Like if the combination takes 55 moves, they allow 110.

Totally agree. I've had this rule applied in games, and I have no problems with it. I think it's fair to allow the players to continue for a bit and reserve judgement. If it becomes obvious that one player is just shuffling to run down the opponent's clock, interrupting and declaring the game drawn is entirely fair in my view. This is also why I think increments are a good thing, avoiding such problems.

After the rook is taken no player could make a draw claim until 50 moves had elapsed. I don't understand your point.

@BonTheCat @Numquam

As Nunquam points out, how do you define progress? 

If a draw "no progress" claim is made against a player, you give the barman the FEN for the position at the start of the draw period and at the time of the claim and ask him to look it up on tb7.chessok.com. He only has to check what it says for each position and then tell you if the player who is claimed against made progress or not. Nothing more, no moves or who is winning or whatever.

E.g., given that it's White to play in each position and the first is at the start of the draw period and the second at time of claim.

White has made progress, he's closer to mate.

 White has not made progress, he's no closer to mate.

White has not made progress, he's gone from a win to a draw.

White has not made progress, he's gone from a draw to a win for Black.

White has not made progress, he started with a draw and he's still got a draw.

White has made progress, he's further away from being mated by Black.

Hope that clarifies. No arbiter discretion needed or wanted. 

thanks: )

I understand this endgame ( for allready a very long time ) and I know it is not the shortes line it is forced and I know how to win this position. So why I may not win this if for example I reach this after a 30 or 40 moves and I am fully aware how to checkmate it?

FIDE extended the 50 move rule to 75 for certain pawn/piece endgames when computer analysis showed it would take more than 50 to mate but they changed it back to 50 and just said to hell with it.

The rule I suggested would allow the checkmate even if no EGTBs were accessible. (Probably all endgames with the same material, but I can't be certain.)

I think it is not fair if you are not able to win winning positions if you  understand how  to win them.

It wasn't computer analysis for two knights v pawn, it was A.A.Troitsky.

I agree. The original 50 move rule was intended to limit pointless play, not prevent people from mating. It was probably arrived at by taking the longest mate in bishop and knight and adding 50%. But endgame analysis has moved on; it's no longer enough.

I know that. And when I was anout 15 years old I allready was fasciinated by it and red in a book of Max Euwe de hoge school van het eindspel how you could win some of this positions and later I found the win in this position my self. By self-examination out of interest.

The thing is, if it got changed to 75 some people would still complain. If you're not peeving off people at both ends of the spectrum then you ain't doing anything.

As I keep saying, I don't have a quibble with setting a limit, but I don't think it should be different for different endgames, nor do I think it should be decided by the arbiter whether to extend the limit for an individual game.