The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

The 50 move rule isn't fair. If for example in a knight+bishop endgame, the winning side finally has a forced mate, but the final mating move is move 52 or move 65..etc, or in 2 bishops vs knight endgame the knight will be captured on move 51..etc, it IS STILL A CLEAR WIN, and should not be declared a draw on a technicality. There are also endgames where well over 50 moves are required to force mate. Examples include 2 Bishops vs Knight, 2 knights vs. pawn, rook+bishop vs rook, rook+knight vs bishop+knight, 3 minor pieces vs rook, queen vs minor pieces, and even one 500 move mate with a queen and knight vs. knight+bishop+rook. The 50 move rule shouldn't just give the losing side a way out of an easily won position

Yes, I always chuckle to myself whenever I find myself defending the knight, bishop and rook position against queen and knight...

/ If the 50 move rules stops millions of pointless endless games online from continuing, it will  have done a lot more good than harm.

The forced sequence of 500 moves leading to checkmate in the queen and knight vs knight, bishop and rook ending is an easy win for only one player, GM Lomonosov Tablebase.

In this game one of the players would win on time without the 50 move rule.

What I really think is unfair is being able to check the King more than 5 times in a row, or checking the King more than say 10 times in a game should be an instant lose...theory being that if the idiot attacker can't mate in 5 moves or just mindlessly checks hoping that something good will happen, then they should NOT be allowed to win. Point being that we all have our pet peeves in the game, but the rules are the rules.

I for one am glad that the 50-move rule exists.

https://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=2231018243

7 piece table bases are full positions where a forced checkmate with best play by both sides needs 200+ moves. The record is 550+ moves for a forced mate !

B+N checkmate can be done in less than 25 moves from most starting positions. 33 maximum moves which allows for several mistakes to start  anew. You get two tries at it. No third tries. You're outta luck and time.

WOW! Computer easy is the biggest troll ever!

Great rule for a great game

Actually, that title used to belong to Computer2-MEDIUM.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/computer2-medium-is-the-biggest-troll-on-chesscom

But as everyone knows, I defeated Comp2 7-1 in the 1st Troll Chess Championship, so as of now I am officially the Troll Chess Champion of chess.com.

There has to be something like the 50 move rule. A B + N endgame takes a max. 32 good moves to mate starting from the most difficult position, if you can't do it in 50 how do you know you'll figure it out in 100, 200?

I just achieved a draw against a guy rated 200 points over me by sacrificing a pawn on the side where I had had a majority so that I could double and split up his connected pawns on the other side of the board where he had a majority and a passed pawn. Should I get less than 1/2 point because I was a pawn down? I thought it was a brilliant combination to trade my N + P for a B to allow me to set up a drawn position.

The rules aren't simply for individual games. They're for tournament play (FIDE's main focus, as I understand it) and such long running games in the days of increments or delays rather than adjournments create havoc.

Yes, there are some theoretically won positions which are now (by the rules) considered drawn. As you might end up on either side of such a game and are (well I am, anyway) inferior as a player to a computer with an endgame tablebase, I'll settle for practicality and the 50 move rule.

If you wish to become more incensed, consider that FIDE have added a 75 move rule where you or your opponent need not claim the draw; an arbiter will enforce a draw for you. Again, arguably not in the best interest of the players (although definitely a plus for junior tournaments where the participants haven't worked out how to agree a draw yet!) but absolutely in the interest of keeping a tournament moving along.

Without the 50 moves rule, some games could go on forever. For example, Magnus plays a championship match against Hikaru. Last game, and Hikaru needs to win it to become the champion, while Magnus is satisfied with a draw. This position arises:

Magnus offers a draw, knowing that the position is drawish. Hikaru says, "Nope, but if you want to surrender, I will accept it". The game can go on for a very long time before it ends by repetition: white has a bishop and a king and 40 squares to operate on - the game can easily go for a 1000 more moves, before white has exhausted all the opportunities to avoid the perpetual.

With the authors permission, I would like to nominate this for chess.com's best head scratching post of the year. I am literally dumbfounded a chess player could dream up such a scenario. One that includes all the key phrases... Hikaru, Magnus. 1000 moves, avoid the perpetual (???), position is drawish. It literally has Everything included.

Assuming the black king keeps moving between g8 and h8 (which leads to the shortest possible scenario), white king can tour around all the available squares in 38 moves (the bishop square is taken). Say, a5-h5, h4-a4, a3-h3, h2-a2, a1-g1. Then the king makes a triangular maneuver g1-h2-h1. As the black king's positions are shifted now, the white king can go back to a5 by repeating his trajectory from a5 to h1 backwards. The king can repeat this whole maneuver twice without getting draw by repetition.

Then white moves the bishop from h4 to g5. The whole ~160 move sequence repeats again. Then the bishop moves again... Now that I think about it, the approximate number of moves can be as high as ~160*20 (20 is the number of allowed squares for the white bishop), which is 3200. Even if the increment is only 30 seconds, that means 1600 minutes, or over 25 hours - Hikaru could hope that Magnus gets exhausted and falls asleep, losing on time.  

Permission granted!

@SuperSam1 and @MayCaesar, both of those are drawn positions, not just "drawish."  According to the FIDE rules of chess, Article 5.2.b:

The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was legal. (See Article 9.6)

The 50-move rule, threefold repetition rule, and drawn-on-timeout rules are unnecessary here.  It is a 'dead position,' and is thus a draw, period, game over, end of discussion.

Oh, I see... Interesting, I didn't know that. What are the USCF rules on this?

It still doesn't address the positions in which legally a checkmate is possible, but it is easy for both players to prevent it. For example, this one:

 White can win if he takes a few black pawns with his knight and black doesn't retake, and black can win if white makes a similar mistake.

You are correct, this is not a 'dead position,' so some other means of ending the game is necessary, although most players would simply agree to a draw in this position.  If one of the other players is really low on time, the other may try to play on, however there are ways that the player that is low on time can have an arbitrator declare the game to be a draw or otherwise given an opportunity to prove the draw (i.e., a delay or increment may be added to the clock and a player should easily move within the delay or increment in order to not lose on time).

I do not know what the USCF rules are in regards to such a position (they don't exist online for free, last I knew), but I would be surprised if their rules are significantly different in this situation.

In that position, I believe that the mate is possible but not forced, so the result would depend on whose rule-set you are using.  Assuming no draw agreement or claim via 50-move or 3-fold rep:  FIDE - loss for the player who runs out of time, USCF and chess.com - draw.