The 50 move rule shouldn't exist

It's somewhat important to note that tablebases have displayed many forced wins which we once thought to be drawn, but can actually be won given many, many moves. Often, these endgames extend further than 50 moves even with best play. However, most of these endgames are so subtle that it's more or less impossible for a human to understand the technique (or the lack of technique).

Actually, it has no big practical value. They extended it years ago to 100 or 200 moves for certain endgames and took it back. It has no practical value. Humans are light-years away from a tb - so there is no comparison.

The negative effect -players who torture their opponents in dead-drawn positions endlessly- prevails.

The 50 move rule is mostly practical, so that tournaments do not go on forever. Some 50 move rule is theoretically necessary so that every chess game ends in a finite number of moves.
Maybe in the future we will have table base adjudication, as they already practice in ICCF correspondence play.

I've always been in favour of an extension of the 50 move rule, as it's a relatively simple way of generating a few more decisive games at little cost.
I remember some very complicated endgame in a Carlsen-Topalov game, where Carlsen made slow progress but then had to move a pawn after 49 moves of actual useful maneuvering and it was an instant draw afterwards, and there are "frequently" cases of KRB v KR being won but not being able to close it out, etc.
75 sounds nice, but then it turns into highly difficult math to calculate when they're hit, so 70 or so probably works.

Removing it entirely is definitely an abysmal idea.

E: This is the game http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1811289
Compare the position after move 39 with the one after 83. Clearly Black has made some kind of progress - but then he was running out of moves, so he had to play ..Ne5:, with a very simple draw

As previously said tablebases have taught us that some endgames require sometimes much more than 50 moves to win (500+ moves etc). It is precisely for this reason that the 50 moves rules is necessary because it would be completely impractical for tournament organizers to allow some games to continue for that long (all games need to be finished for the next round to start: think 500 moves * 30 secs increment per move * 2).

I think there used to be some exceptions for some particular endgames but the exceptions were found to be so numerous that it was decided to simplify the rule and make it 50 moves for all endgames.

Before you begin a game of chess you both agree to play by the same rules that you both are fully aware of. So if you don't checkmate your opponent within the 50 move rule you have no one to blame but yourself. Be a man and accept responsibility for your failure to win by the agreed rules.

I dont agree the rule. I want a different rule. 100 moves. That is for true hard knocked player.

I agree, 100 moves would be more reasonable. I have never actually drawn a game with the 50 move rule, as knight+bishop mate is the easiest imaginable. I think a time limit, in addition to the standard time control, would be better than a move limit

I could see 100, but 50 is just impatience. U have a cool complex endgame, people want to play it out. If u want to save time, don't have 3 hour time controls with 30 second increments!

The draw still needs to be claimed. There might be cases where both players are trying to win the game and they play on for ever, for example where the stronger player has a slightly weaker position. The arbiter can step in and claim a draw after 75 moves in that case.