The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

But if the time increment in that game had been a minute for each player, the game time would have passed 2 hours before they finished.

You can also construct instances where, due to time control, a player cannot finish the game in 2 hours but would have managed to win if there was time to play 50 moves.

There is no effective difference in the general case.

No, I said they have time control, but the game ALSO must end in 2 hours regardless of if players still have clock time left. They have to play within the time control and also finish the game in x hours. In other words. the arbiter would declare it a  draw after 2 hours even if both players had 10 minutes left on their clock.

What if someone doesn't want to play even a 1 hour game but the other player is willing to go for 3-4 hours? Is it unfair to the guy who deosn't even want to play for 1 hour? Well sorry, but chess games can take over an hour in tournaments.

Yes, that's what I understand from what you said. If the game must end in 2 hours, then won positions can often not be won. It's the same as if there's a limit on number of moves without pawn move or capture.

But your giving the players a chance to win endgames that take more than 50 moves. With the 50 move rule, your not giving them a chance. Besides, i think most players would agree to a draw after 6 hours of playing anyway.

The 50 move is saying that the game is automatically a draw even it took only 10 minutes to make the moves. Saying the game must end no later than an hour from now is just a practical thing, where as the 50 move rule is saying that the game must end even if there's plenty of time left to keep playing.

Endgames that take more than 50 moves to win without pawn move or capture are rare. Endgames which require 100 or more moves to win, but have pawn moves and captures, occur more frequently than that. Say the tricky endgame of White King, Queen and a-pawn on a2 versus Black King and Queen. That pawn will have to be gradually advanced. White has winning chances, but the game may last ages. Are you happy if, when White has finally advanced the pawn to a7 at move 156, the arbiter steps in and calls it a draw because 2 hours have passed?

I would say tough luck to White. The tournament has to continue. But what is the moral difference between that and your objections to a draw under the 50 move rule in other circumstances?

We keep cross posting because you make multiple postings. Your posting #314 answers my questions. Thank you.

1. Are you proposing that FIDE should introduce a two hour time limit into its BASIC RULES section?

2. Would the 2 hour limit apply to correspondence chess?

3. Endgames that cannot be won within the 50 move rule generally need considerably more thought spent on each move than would be needed in e.g. KBNK. Would two hours accommodate a 500 move ending in this case?

Because time is a universal thing. You can't avoid time, but u can be allowed to play however many moves u want within that time. It is wrong to limit the number of moves, when u don't know how long it will take to play those moves. As for the queen and pawn vs queen, again, if u don't want to draw on time, then speed up your play a little, but STILL BE ALLOWED TO PLAY.

I get your point about the timecontrol preventing the round from dragging-on indefinitely, and with that in mind the 50_move rule is honestly the least necessary of the force-draws; therefore, playing either casually or competing in a tournament without the rule in place is perfectly acceptable so long all contestants are informed of this lite form of a *variant*: the 50_move rule is a broadly accepted rule, so playing without it would equate to playing a variant (granted, one which requires less alterations to strategy generally in most actual rounds than say with a no_casting variant, but different nonetheless, especially concerning choosing candidate moves in late middlegames).

All of that acknowledged, the rule does speed up the rounds (yes those with timecontrols), especially those with longer time-control, and prevents one player (either the one with a technical slight winning advantage of the ither) from dragging it on beyond what is necessary which taxes the players who still have other rounds to play.  In a theoretical sense, playing without the rule is more 'proper', in application between human players---especially those of sub-GM -level endgame skills--- it is still a net benefit to the game (imho).

I'm not saying any fixed amount of time, but just go by how much time is left, like 2 hours before next round, or the end of the day..etc.

A variant. Give me a break. Crazyhouse is a variant.

Something to prevent one or both players from milking the clock[s] past 100turns?

I did call it a "lite" variant.

You could try claiming it's already gone on for two hours.

Insulting me and trying to put me down doesn't change anything

Look, there's no perfect way to prevent long games. They will happen one time or another And limiting the number of moves is not the right way to go about it. You limit the time. The main problem, which STILL everyone refuses to achknowledge, is that people use it to claim draws when the game WILL END next move, mate next move, won't continue another 5 hours.\, which is completely unfair to the winner. That issue is more important than the occasional 4 hour game. The 4 hour game may be worth while.

I hope chess.com has a 50-page forum topic rule.  This one reminds me of those 1000-move games that Endgame advocates.

Unlikely, as some topics have hundreds of pages with almost 10,000 posts!