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

I've seen mates carried out later than 50 moves of no captures. In a classical format, is a 75 move rule more appropriate? 

There is already a rule like this. The difference is that a player has to claim a draw after 50 moves. But the 75 move rule is that the game is drawn even if the players don't claim it.

Mates can also happen after 75 moves... 

Then, should we disregard the 50 move rule and only have the 75 move rule?

There are people that want to claim a draw though...IMO it's perfectly fine the way it is.

I think that if anyone has the opponent @AyushMChessMator, every chess rule should force his opponent in resign in 2 months.

As to your opinion, I think it's interesting - 50 move rule is rare enough anyway.

FIDE used to have a 75 move rule for various endings, then reverted to a 50 move rule. They have now scrapped the rule altogether except in FIDE controlled competition games. (See https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=207&view=article.)

And no doubt, with accurate play by both sides, after 75 moves without a capture or pawn move, but can you think of any? If you can, can you prove that they couldn't have been effected without violating the 75 move rule?

OK to answer my own question, there's a 7 piece mate in 545 shown here

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/longest-mate-official---mate-in-545

(presumably longest pawnless mate, because the longest is supposed to be 549) and since there are only 5 pieces additional to the kings, that obviously couldn't be won within the 75 move rule.

I've been active in competitive OTB chess for 40 years, playing scores of games each year. So far, only one of my games has been drawn through the 50-move rule.

Having a rule which varies depending on how many moves you need theoretically to achieve mate is completely impractical since a) there are many different theoretical positions requiring a different number of moves (knowledge most likely beyond the average amateur), and b) some positions may not even have a theoretical solution, instead requiring a bad blunder on the part of one of the players. In the latter case, where should the limit be set?

In which case you shouldn't really be averse to the 50-move rule ...

As for the 25 moves per piece additional to the kings, it doesn't require much to get a 150 move limit (say a couple of pawns on each side locked together + plus B v R) or are you not counting pawns? I really don't think it's a good idea to involve table-bases at all, since it's tantamount to giving the players advice. That said, I was also thinking of situations where games are played without an arbiter present (much of lower league chess in Europe, for instance, have no arbiter present).

Also, if one player is trying to win, I don't really see why 50n + 1 ply would make a difference. The claim can be made at any point. The fact that the players are making blunders should be completely irrelevant for rulings on such a claim. When I was able to claim the draw by the 50-move rule, my opponent was within about five moves from mating me. He was always theoretically winning, since it was B+N v K, so his points score would never have budged from the winning advantage.

Now you mention it, neither do I.

Under the system I outlined, if he had been five moves away from mate then the draw claim would have succeeded only if he had been five moves or less from mate when the endgame appeared. If after another 50 moves he didn't reduce it to at most four moves from mate the draw claim would succeed (if the game got that far). If he had no idea at all what he was doing he wouldn't have made steady (if pathetic) progress towards mate, so at some stage your draw claim would have succeeded.

In the other phases of chess there is no rule requiring accurate play - you just play on till the one with the most innocuous blunders wins or it's a draw. 

On the other hand there is no EGTB for the starting position so if after 750 moves no pieces have been taken and no pawns moved, either side could claim a draw and the claim would be successful (but you'd probably be able to claim repetition before that).

He wasn't five moves away from mate when I sacrificed my bishop for his last remaining pawn, more like the 32 moves required at very best of play.

Anyway, the thing is also that when the arbiter showed my opponent after the game, he seemed genuinely surprised that he was so close to mate. In other words, an arbiter (consulting a table base) rejecting my claim on the basis that my opponent had made sufficient progress, however inexpert (in this case my king had already wandered around three corners of the board, two of which were the right colour!), s/he would have given my opponent a strong hint that he was actually close to mate.

This is also exactly why I can't see any reason why the 50 move rule should be extended - as you say, there's no rule requiring accurate play, but there is a rule prohibiting outside assistance. This is basically the same situation as you have in team chess. As the team captain you can only tell a player who has been offered a draw whether he's allowed to accept the offer or not, with reference to the match score. It's perfectly fine to say, 'We need you to win, we're down in the match.', but not 'Well, I think you can win.' (that would be an evaluation).

Oh great, more dragged out endings against people who don't know how to play endgames but who lack the sense to just call it a day!

The reason that the 50 move rule should be extended is positions like the following  (third diagram in the Batsford Knight Endings book) which I studied till I could guarantee a win with the knights under the 75 move rule that applied at the time, only for FIDE to legislate that I couldn't necessarily any more. 

                                                                      Black to play
But the outside assistance given to your opponent that you refer to would in that instance be at your discretion (you're not forced to claim) and in any case be miniscule. Certainly not a strong hint that he was close to mate. He could be 33 moves away. In general  it wouldn't tell him if he was winning, losing or drawn (though in KBNK he probably had a good idea he wasn't losing).

It now depends on what sort of game it is. If it's not a FIDE controlled competition game, I'm allowed to win from the above position again, If it is a FIDE controlled competition, it depends on how wide awake my opponent is if he plays perfectly.

But scrapping the rule altogether means you could have to wait for an awful lot of moves while your opponent works out what to do with a bishop and knight.

So it's a trade off between prohibiting certain wins or passing miniscule information (to both sides).

The FIDE rules have allowed for much more explicit information to be passed in the past. At one time an extension was granted in KNNKP only if White's pawn was blocked behind the Troitsky line, so pretty much asking for the extension told you what the result should most likely be depending on whether or not it was granted.

I wish some of you would stop writing in exactly the same font INSIDE the quote you've created. It makes quotes pointless and confusing.

Sorry. I've got a bad habit of clicking the quotes instead of "edit". I've deleted a couple of spurious posts.

When I talked about an arbiter, that could be just someone in the same pub with a mobile 'phone who could consult the Syzygy tables. The only reason for the "arbiter" is to ensure that the only info made available is whether or not the draw claim succeeds.