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

I guess fundamentally it seems selfish to want more people to wait for you to finish in real life. If it can't be fairly applied in real life, then why should it be applied online. It's like that other guy said, just some kind of Purists variant of chess. Why not go back to only moving only one pawn space at a time while you are at it.

I think we would all get terrible toe nail problems xD  Near total neglect of actual life.

That's why you need to look at #51 again. Then you wouldn't need to say what it seems to be based on, you'd know what it was based on and that it covers Sitzfleisch.

If you think how many pieces are left on the board is not a determining factor in how many moves are needed can you find a position with only three men on the board where a win can't be forced in less than 549 moves?

I didn't mean just situations where the 50-move applies, but a very specific situation where the following condition is met: The position is only winning with (Syzygy) optimal play without the 50-move rule. This situation is far more rare. I don't see any benefit in other cases.

The bishop and knight endgame is an example where your rule does pretty bad, because it removes the challenge of finding a checkmate in 50 moves. The 50 move draw rule makes this endgame more interesting and fun for spectators, because the winning side really has to play precise. Plenty other examples can be given where your rule allows imprecise play.

50% was just some random number as example, it could be 30% of the players or even 90% who would hate your rule. I would not be surprised if it is 90%. In particular the arbiter would definitely hate it.

I doubt that, as it was actually changed to 75 by FIDE  a few decades ago and changed back

MARattigan suggested a different rule based on 'progress'. 

I did understand what you meant. I just question whether the situation is very rare or just very rare in endgames with relatively few pieces that people can actually understand. The single most common position in games is the starting position, but if there is a theoretical forced win for one side in that position can you definitely say it could be achieved within the 50 move rule? If there is such a win and it can't be achieved within the 50 move rule then what you say about rarity would obviously be false.

I agree that in KBNK waiting for famous players to mess up the win under the 50 move rule is great fun, but you have to balance that against never having the prospect of seeing someone win some of the relevant KNNKP positions against a computer using a Syzygy EGTB. You can still get to see famous players blunder into a draw in KBNK as in the game I mentioned a few posts back.

Yes of course my rule allows inaccurate play. Chess wouldn't be interesting without inaccurate play - the result of every game would be the same. The 50 move rule (and my proposed replacement) is almost always applicable mostly towards the end of the game. Why should there be rules against inaccuracy at the end but not at the beginning of a game?

As I already said, if both players in a game dislike my rule they can agree a draw. If they can't agree a draw, then presumably at least 50% of the players in the game like it.

bruh moment

No, I'm not going to go back and look again, because my description is accurate. You want to look at two points only and based on that you want a ruling, despite the fact that it says nothing about what happens in between. Look at Kempinski-Yepishin again and you'll see what I mean. Yepishin doesn't actually make any real further progress after 8 moves of KBN v K. According to your evaluation criteria he does. Same goes for that KR v K. Anyone beyond the immediate beginner stage will find the mate in about 15 moves or so. It's rather an easy mate, after all. Anyone needing as many as 50 moves and still haven't found the mate is not making any sort of progress, and also barring outright blunders the evaluation will never change (just like KBN v K).

I don't think your rule is clear at all. On the contrary, I find it completely arbitrary, as I believe I've pointed out. As for the limits I only gave an example of a position where it requires 500 moves without capture and pawn move, and there were only five pieces on the board apart from the king. You suggest 125 moves for that number of pieces on the board (1/4 of the required total), whereas you want a limit that is only 1.5 times the moves required for a two-piece endgame like KBN v K. Even with optimum play in these endgames the limits you suggest won't cover them, such as K2N v KP.

I come back to the two issues all the time. 1) Where do you draw the line? Your arithmetic rule doesn't at all resolve the problem you outline. 2) The ruling on draw claims is utterly arbitrary. It's just a question whether someone has the advantage or not. That's an utterly pointless criteria since you've yourself shown that super GM Vladimir Yepishin had no clue what to do, but according to you he'd made sufficient progress to be allowed to continue.

Also, its enough to get a position with interlocking pawn chains of say five or six pawns each and a couple of pieces on each side (not exactly an unusual configuration) and we have a limit of 300 moves or more. What's the point?

'Sitzfleisch' ...

As for the inaccuracies, the arbiter is not making any judgement on inaccuracies at the start of the game, so why should he do so at the end? Furthermore, it's all dependent on the piece configuration whether an inaccuracy punished harshly or leniently.

@BonTheCat

I think I'll claim a draw under the 50 post rule at this point.

Rejected, we are still making progress.

100 move rule, progress rule, if even no rule to this affect would be better. His logic is that if someone doesn't win the fastest way, they shouldn't win. What if i miss a mate in 2 and mate in 7? Knight and Bishop vs king can take up to 33 moves with PERFECT PLAY, so it is easy to assume that even a strong player taking 18 more moves is reasonable, as even 1 inaccuracy could take 10 moves to rectify.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, 50 moves allow for imperfect play. The question is why it should arbitrarily extended depending on the configuration on the board. If it is extended to the extent required it becomes meaningless, and you would have players inexpertly (or expertly) trying to win (or having to defend) basically forever.

18 moves, especially in an endgame like that, doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing. They could be doing a slower formation that is easier for them. For example, I usually sac the bishop in a Q + B v king endgame because it makes it less confusing, if I am pressed for time. There's a difference between random moves and re-configuring or re-starting a mating pattern. The progress rule would take care of this, except for the fact that in a case like this:

Not saying these are the best moves, but someone might re-locate his pieces to re-position them, and then launch the correct moves. Also, even if one person is not making progress, the opponent might make a mistake, reducing it to an easily winning endgame. Fascinating discussion. Imrpoving this rule should definitely be a priority in USCF and FIDE. BTW, there is actually a Rook+Bishop v Rook position that takes 59 moves. This position supposedly takes 96 moves:

I could imagine the beginning moves being something like this, but after have no freaking clue!!

@EndgameStudier

there is actually a Rook+Bishop v Rook position that takes 59 moves

But KRK can take up to 16 moves, so that doesn't mean that it would necessarily fail under the 50 move rule. Have you checked it with Syzygy?

Here is a mate in 65 position that can't be won within the 50 move rule against accurate defence.

                                                                                              White to play

@EndgameStudier:  'Fraid you've blown it already.

EndgameStudier: You keep citing examples which will inevitably involve pawn moves, resetting the 50 move count.

That's not a problem. His two knights v two pawns position could still not be won within the 50 move rule following the last pawn move if Black plays accurately (and definitely couldn't be won within the 50 move rule with the moves shown; couldn't be won at all in fact).

That's correct if you're not in a FIDE regulated game when the 50 move rule doesn't apply. If you are in a FIDE regulated game, the 50 move rule applies, and that number rises (to 123 I seem to remember, but  maybe higher). But trying to play it accurately taking into account the 50 move rule is certainly well beyond me and likely to forever remain so. I would guess that would apply to any human.  The 50 move rule increases the difficulty of any ending where it could apply by orders of magnitude.