The 50 move rule shouldn't exist!

I see what you're saying but I disagree. I think 100 is a bad arbitrary number.

The move limit in KBKN etc. should definitely not be a three figure number. The old 50 move rule would have limited this endgame to at most 50 moves. You're proposing to double it. A 1 move rule would be quite high enough for KBKN.

Just try setting up a KBKN or KBKB x-y position in one of your chess programs and playing it through for 100 moves. The GUI will probably enforce a draw under the 50 move rule (because it's out of date) but you can set it up again and play the other 50. I think you'll see what I mean.

 Edit: You'll probably need a human to do the above endgames for 100 moves. Stockfish, at least, will take your piece if you offer it.

This should do against your computer. If you play White you just need to avoid the top half of the board with your king.

 Edit two: I noticed that you also appear to suggest that the first no progress claim would not be available after 100 moves but the first no progress period should only start then. In that case to get a feel for the result you should probably try the KBKN or KBKB x-y endgame for at least 140 moves and the above KNNKP for at least 160 moves.

U have to leave room for inaccurate play or no progress. Come on, 100 moves is not that bad even in a useless endgame, and what if a player isn't making progress, but is manuvring pieces around trying to figure out what will make progress. If ur willing to wait 50 moves, u can wait 100 moves

If you want to suggest a rule you need to see how it pans out in practice. Did you actually try any of the endgames I suggested above? If you would condemn all future generations of chess players to the ordeal, you should be prepared to undergo it yourself.

The no progress rule would already automatically leave room for inaccurate play. If it's set to 20 moves for a 3 man ending, 40 for a four man ending etc. then in say KRK the side with the rook can "manoeuvre" for 19 moves in each no progress period without getting any nearer mate and still be  deemed to have made progress so long as his 20th. move takes him one move nearer than he was at the start of the period. In KBNK the side with BN would be able to uselessly "manoeuvre" for 39 moves in each period so long as his 40th. move took him one move closer to mate. From the worst positions in KBNK the side with BK could theoretically make 1287 useless "manoeuvring" moves and still win.

I guess, NVM. Fine, I retract the 100 moves thing

Wow. Apparently total convergence. A result!

Now we just need FIDE on board.

It was a little confusing, but I understand it now. Now we just gotta convince FIDE and USCF

Humour is the solution to this problem. I'm DrHumour and chess is a draw in 50 moves. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA get it?

Not really, Chess is a draw in stalemate, repetition, or insufficient mating material. ur right though, 50 moves is a joke. It would be less funny if the rule was 10,000 moves

I would like to disagree with your example (not sure, if quoting it will show the position correctly, but it's the one from first page, post #15).
Position you are showing us is clearly a draw position, because there's no sequence of legal moves that could let any of the sides to either win or lose. And this is the reason why the game should end in a draw, which should be enforced by arbiter. There's just no point in playing this.

It's in completely different league than long mating sequences, which is one of the main problems with 50-moves draw rule. It can punish good and brilliant players that can actually give a mate in some specific, not necessarily unusual, situation, unfairly finishing the game by the draw.

Position is clearly a draw and player just prolongs the game inanely? Then let's make it a draw, without a need of 50 moves rule, that's why we have arbiters during matches. Or at least let's increase the numbers of moves, if the outcome is not clear or even more, if it can be a clear win.

You can say: Player can't give or don't know how to checkmate with Bishop and Knight, wasting many moves, so the rule have an use. However, I could say the same about a mating sequence that goes over 100 moves, like some KRBN vs KQN positions - if player don't know how to mate, we can make it a draw. The problem is, 50 moves allows you to mate with Bishop and Knight, while many players that could know how to mate in 7-man position above, won't even be able to checkmate even with a perfect play from their side, because they will run out of moves and reach 50.

So, I would say: either abolish the 50-moves draw rule as in general, but instead adjust it to the situation on board. Let's make it a call for arbiter after these 50/75/other moves, to decide if draw can be claimed, while allowing to play for some more moves, if there's a chance for winning the game. If nothing changes for some time and player is not making progress to mate the opponent, or the position seems to either be really a drawn one or it persists to be a draw as a consequence of the moves the players choose, then we can call it a draw.

So, what do you think about this idea above? Let's point these out, for clearness:

• Some closed or repetitive positions that are obvious draw don't need 50-moves rule at all, it's "just a draw" and arbiter can call it as one.
• If player is unable to checkmate and wastes moves, while game prolongs, then we can use a rule to draw the game.
• Even then, the rule is adjusted to the current situation on board, allowing for more moves, with eventually terminating the game, if there's no real progress on board (much of responsibility on arbiters here, so decide if there's really "no progress", unless it's obvious).
  
  

I agree

It's just for determining how many moves they have left, not a 3rd player in the game. I like your progress rule Marattigan, and we should convince fide and uscf to implement it.

These are 2 main examples of where the 50 move is a problem:

No doubt your recommendation to either organization would result in management's call for an emergency meeting of directors.  That of course would be quickly followed by the board's termination of the 50-move rule and issuance of an official apology to all those highly skilled endgame craftsmen who have had to suffer the indignity of seeing their 450-move forced mates become draws because of that unfair and inhuman rule.

FIDE has already dropped the 50 move rule from the basic rules of chess. It's retained only in the extra rules for competitions.

Not just an apology, but the 2 players brought back to finish their endgame and re-distribute prize money accordingly.

I disagree. If the arbiter declares a draw then he possibly changes the result of the game, so is effectively a third player.

In this position it's possibly unfair on White to declare a draw under the 50 move rule because it's a theoretical win. But at least the 50 move rule is fixed a rule of chess (in competitions).

Two different arbiters could make different decisions about whether or not to allow the game to continue and that effectively turns them into a third player because the outcome of the game could very well determined by their decision rather than the relative competence of the players. The different possible calls and hence  possibly the result of the game would rather reflect the relative competence of the arbiters.

Even if the arbiter calls a draw in a theoretically drawn position the same applies. For example the following theoretically drawn Black to play position occured in Topolov-Karpov 2000. Had an arbiter called a draw that would have been the result, but in the event Karpov resigned 7 moves later when Topolov had mate in 3.

I think the arbiter's role should be restricted to purely automatic application of rules that are known to both players in advance.

I feel like the pawn moves at some point though, right?

No (or at least in the first diagram not until the c3 knight leaves to deliver mate and in the second White draws easiest by capturing it where it stands in two moves.)

How can 1 knight and 1 king force the king to the edge. The other knight has to help at some point