The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

Sorry, I can't believe that there is any game that would take 500 moves to checkmate with best play on both sides, please post the game/position or anything to prove this.

Ok, I've just seen your #38 & 39.

Your image on #39/47 doesn't correspond to any of http://tb7.chessok.com/articles/Top8DTM_eng so I thought you meant the top board on that link? 1. KRBN-KQN. Rook, Bishop and Knight against Queen and Knight. Mate in 545.

http://tb7.chessok.com/probe/3/65

FEN QN4n1/6r1/3k4/8/b2K4/8/8/8 b - -

[Edit] Ok, I now believe that some endgames exist where it takes over 500 moves 'til checkmate with best play on both sides (if removing the draw by 50 move rule) 

Thanks @cjxchess16 #51 & 52 for demonstrating this.

Black to move. White forces mate in 545 moves.

Unless your opponent is rated 300

Ok @ #47, It would be easier for people to participate if instead of an image you set up a shareable FEN board like this 

Black to move. White forces mate in 545 moves.

Pretty obvious really. 

I think yes cause it's useful for some chess problems

dat b u 2Q ?

A won endgame shouldn't be declared a draw because it takes a long time to win. That's what happens when u get into the losing side of a winning endgame; u face a long, slow destruction

It is only by definition 'won' if the leading side can guaranteeably force checkmate within confines of the officially recognized rules of the game: no three-fold repeated position or fifty-move without capture or pawn-advancement. Obviously without the fifty-move rule, mate-in-500+move endgame tablebases scenarios can lead to victory by the leading side, presuming accurate play and adequate time remaining on clock (if applicable). Perhaps a few endgame wins could be precluded by thrice-repeteated rule with accurate response by losing side to again force a draw.

Technically, any of the tablebases positions that would deliver checkmate in 51+ non-pawn\capture moves under perfect play/response by either side is ---per official rules of the game--- a theoretical draw.  I say 'theoretical' because a mate-in-327 position is also theoretical in the sense that two competing human beings would most likely not play accurately enough to accomplish that, as also the case with a much-nearer but still distant forcible mate-within-48; the losing side may succeed in invoking fifty-move draw (or even win by Checkmate if losing side severely blundered, or more likely in actual rounds by time) just as winning side may secure victory in well under 49 moves (presuming the position commenced directly after a capture or pawn-push). Even present engines/computers would in most scenarios not play accurately as the tablebases have established without the tablebases uploaded into its 'book's like with preferred opening_line sequences.

Similarly with draw by stalemate: it is responsibility of a winning side to deliver checkmate, not prevent opponent from making any legal move ---and that is presuming that the 'winning' side was in actuality objectively 'winning' at any point.

It's not really a rule of the game in itself. Stalemate being a draw, and not being allowed to castle though check, En Passant are rules of the game. This rule is like saying, ohh this games takin too long, just make it a draw already. The 50 move rule came in after, when they realized obviously drawn endgames, like Rook vs Rook could just go on forever randomly. I think in queen vs Queen endings, where no obvious skewers are possible in the next few moves, it should just be declared a draw by the director, if one player refuses to agree to a draw.

Actually it IS a rule of the game.  Granted, a more recently-implemented one than most (within decades of present compared to centuries), but still an official rule (outside of FIDE as well).  You do make a fair point however regarding the presumed original intentions for implementing it.

So at what point would the director or arbiter be supposed to declare it as such (a draw)? After consulting endgame tablebases and verifying that they moved over the 427 moves it should have taken for White to get checkmated?  What about slow-progressing late middlegames?  

Naturally live standard time-limit (with no seconds' increment per turn) can become more pressing.

Yeah, they should wait out the thousand moves to see if one was able to force mate. That would be the best game ever!

The worst thing about the 50 move rule is that they chose a number for no other reason than its even divisibility in our anthropocentric base-10 counting system. If you want a rule with greater universal appeal, one based on a prime number--such as a 47 or 53 move rule--should be implemented in its place.

How about the largest prime number known, with 8 million digits. Make that the rule.

I agree, they should make it make it at least 200, GIVEN that there are endgames that take well over 50 moves with best play.

That's a good idea, but the problem is that the largest-known prime is fluid with innovations in computing, so we'll have to define it in those terms so FIDE doesn't have to re-write the rulebook every 15 seconds once quantum computing has a breakthrough.

Players who realize that they will be mated in certain endgames, like knight vs 2 bishops, rook vs knight..etc, will try to claim 50 move rule to try to get a draw and escape the inevitable mate. This rule shouldn't exist because people try to take advantage of it in losing positions. Then what happens is the arbiters will go on for 15 minutes deciding what the result should be. This is exactly what the rule was designed to prevent-wasting time in useless endgames. If a player realizes he's mated in 2-3 moves, the game WILL END, and it shouldn't be a draw on a technicality. The game will finish, end of discussion.

I don't think it should take 50 moves to mate somebody...