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

The fact that they allowed such hints as 'behind the Troitzky line' in the past doesn't mean that they should have done so at the time. In my view, that was entirely wrong. Although I use the KBN v K endgame as an example, it probably wouldn't be the worst case of outside assistance - but I would definitely feel hard done by should the arbiter reject my the claim after 50 moves, having looked at the table base and seeing my opponent still being 33 (or say 25) moves from mate. That would basically represent zero progress.

However, I don't think such clearcut endgames would represent the worst cases of outside assistance (after all, most players beyond absolute beginner level know that KBN v K is a win, even though they might not be able to execute it). For me, it would be the non-theoretical endgames where such a rejection of a draw claim could prove a crucial hint that there's a win somewhere. I seriously don't think it's the arbiter's job to enter the game adjudicating whether a player is close enough to win to reject a 50 move rule claim or be allowed to exercize discretion as to the number of moves to be played before s/he would award the claim for a draw. (After all, insufficient mating material is defined as material where, even with the most unskill of play, it's impossible to deliver mate. Meaning it's virtually always possible to win.)

Furthermore, where would you draw the line? The following position:

apparently is won for White, mate in a whopping 549 moves at the best of play.  After six moves of the solution White promotes his pawn to a knight. However, the first capture doesn't come until move 509 ...

@BonTheCat

If he were 33 moves away from mate and your claim were rejected, then that would be your fault anyway, because that would only happen if the endgame were a draw when it first appeared. You should have forced stalemate or taken one of his pieces while you had the chance.

If he were 25 moves away then it's not zero progress, just very slow progress.

And in non-theoretical endgames, your opponent doesn't know that there's a win somewhere if your draw claim is rejected He could have been in a lost position at the start of the period and still in a lost position, but one move further away from being mated. Neither does the claimant.

And as for the monster position , somebody would probably win or a draw be agreed within about 30 moves anyway, but if both sides could play it accurately, which is unlikely, then why not let them continue? It's not as complicated as the endgame below (which would be subject to a strict 750 move limit with no extensions in the absence of an EGTB).

                                                                     White to play

I didn't suggest that the arbiter has any discretion at all. He merely looks up the position at the start of the draw period and the end and says whether progress has been made. He doesn't need to know how to play chess. The barman will do so long as he has a mobile phone.

The rules are fine as they are

So why then does FIDE keep changing them?

MARattigan: I really don't understand the way you're reasoning. So, 25 moves away from mate after 50 moves without captures and pawn moves is progress, but it's my fault for having a claim rejected because I didn't force a stalemate before the KBN v K appeared? That's just crazy reasoning; I had no opportunity to force a stalemate before, and I sacrificed my bishop for his last pawn in the hope that he wouldn't know how to give mate (turned out that I was right). You can never be further than 33 moves away from mate in that endgame, which is always winning so basically any move that doesn't blunder away either piece (or delivers stalemate) actually represents progress, even if it's only 1 move less, however little idea you have of the mating procedure. I think we can both agree that's a very odd definition of making progress. As I said, my opponent chased my to the right corner twice, but was surprised when the arbiter showed him the mate at the end. How can that be considered progress? Why should inexpert play be rewarded by being given extra moves? You're never rewarded by the arbiter in this way earlier on in the game.

As we both know, the 'endgame' position you show, clearly has a lot of pawn moves and captures before it can even be a case of the 50-move rule. My position wasn't a monster position (such positions do occur in regular play), and my point was simply this, for how long do you have to defend before you would be allowed to claim the draw? It doesn't make any sense at all to me to use tablebases to adjudicate draw claims. It's not a theoretical endgame position in the normal sense of the word (like the Lucena position in rook endgames or mating with B+N), but after six moves there are no pawns left on the board. The non-chessplaying barman wouldn't have a clue as to whether anyone was making progress, and how would s/he know whether 100, 200, 300 or 500 moves was a little or a lot? In some cases (such as the position I gave), it's also quite possible for the player with the superior material to miscalculate and lose - should the player's claim be rejected for that reason, too? (Even if he's failed to notice it.) Also, you're perfectly entitled to play on in K+R v K+R or K+N v K+N, but few arbiters would reject a claim made long before 50 moves, other than in a game with a blitz finish (and then the game is just being decided on the clock). Where should we set the limit in such cases? And why should the claim be adjudicated on the basis whether the position was won or drawn when the claim period commences? As we both agree, blunders are part of the game, so why should we favour one side over the other towards the end of the game?

RubenHougenHut: So why not learn those endgames instead of hoping to be able to work them out at the board by being given extra time for it by the arbiter? He could also quickly say, 'No, you're not making any progress.' Doesn't strike me as particularly fair. With tablebases these days we can easily find other examples where you can give mate in more than 100 moves as well. So the question is, where do you draw the line? It doesn't strike me as sensible to rule out some endgames and include others. Sure, we can set another limit than 50 moves, but I don't really see why should apply different limits for different endgames.

This reminds me of the discussion of removing stalemate. This rule gives the 'losing' side more possibilities to draw and forces the 'winning' side to play accurately and avoid 50-move draws. If the losing side is only a few moves away from mate when a draw is claimed, that isn't a bad thing. Often the winning side missed a faster checkmate or could have avoided trading down to a position which barely doesn't win.

The 50-move draw rule gives more benefits than drawbacks. Truly drawn games end more quickly. The drawbacks are subjective. Some people think that if a checkmate is possible without that rule, then it should be a win. That is only an opinion, there is no good reason it should be that way. You could also say stalemate is a win, because the king has nowhere to go.

@BonTheCat 

I really don't understand the way you're reasoning. So, 25 moves away from mate after 50 moves without captures and pawn moves is progress, but it's my fault for having a claim rejected because I didn't force a stalemate before the KBN v K appeared? 

No, that's not what I said. I said if he's 33 moves away from mate and your claim were rejected then it's your fault. In that case he's the maximum number of moves away from mate in that endgame, so could only be deemed to have made progress if the position at the start of the draw period were either drawn or lost for him. It obviously couldn't have been lost because you can't mate with your lone king, so it must have been drawn. But there are no draws by repetition in KBNK, so at that point you could have forced either a dead position or stalemate.

@BonTheCat

You can never be further than 33 moves away from mate in that endgame, which is always winning.

Not strictly true.

                                                                        Black to move

Is simpler.

@BonTheCat

any move that doesn't blunder away either piece (or delivers stalemate) actually represents progress, even if it's only 1 move less, however little idea you have of the mating procedure. I think we can both agree that's a very odd definition of making progress. 

I wouldn't call 1.Bc8 making progress here, and I don't think that's a strange viewpoint.

What are you talking about? The 50 move count starts when I capture his last pawn and I am left with my lone king against his K+B+N. You clearly haven't read what I wrote: always winning unless he blunders away one of the pieces and/or stalemates me. And in any event, should I miss such a blunder by my opponent, why should s/he be rewarded with extra moves? Why should one blunder count for less than another in the eyes of the arbiter? It doesn't make any sense.

Numquam: Thanks for agreeing with me. For a while I thought I was going crazy.

@MARattigan, if I am understanding this idea of making progress correctly, you compare the position to the one 50 moves ago? That seems rather complicated for the arbiter. He would have to use a tablebase after every move and remember the position 50 moves ago. Not very practical.

Also I am wondering if a position exists where DTM stays the same for a lot of moves if players make the wrong moves. In theory a game could go on for a long time.

@BonTheCat

Why should inexpert play be rewarded by being given extra moves? You're never rewarded by the arbiter in this way earlier on in the game.

You only think of it as being "given extra moves" because you've been used to the 50 move rule. Remember the inexpert player has got himself into a won endgame. The question should really be why should he not be allowed to move if he's making progress toward mate?

@BonTheCat

As we both know, the 'endgame' position you show, clearly has a lot of pawn moves and captures before it can even be a case of the 50-move rule.

Not necessarily (but it usually would).

@BonTheCat

and my point was simply this, for how long do you have to defend before you would be allowed to claim the draw? 

Would you say that all games should be terminated at 50 moves if you've managed to defend up till then?

Marginally.

@BonTheCat

The non-chessplaying barman wouldn't have a clue as to whether anyone was making progress, and how would s/he know whether 100, 200, 300 or 500 moves was a little or a lot?

Yes he would if you give him the positions at the start and end of the draw claim and show him how to look them up in Syzygy online. Unless you've got a very stupid barman he should have no difficulty. What has numbrers of moves got to do with anything?

@BonTheCat

it's also quite possible for the player with the superior material to miscalculate and lose - should the player's claim be rejected for that reason, too?

I said nothing about relative material, but if one player loses then a draw claim would obviously not subsequently be entertained from either side.