Nothingness:
Extending the 50-move draw rule in chess up to 100 moves for some situations was experimented with for a few years and proposals were made to extend it to a greater number of moves for other situations. The results of those experiments were to reestablish the 50-move rule. Whatever conclusions you or others may come to for a greater number of moves for an Espionage draw rule, there will be those who will conclude that the number of moves should not be increased or that it should be decreased.
As in chess, the purpose of the rule is to keep the game advancing towards conclusion.

Dark Prince: Those findings will be laughable if it goes the way I will attempt. 50-100 lol funny. no we are talking 200 without a capture.. I'm talking real abuse..

Nothingness:

I suggest this test.

A. Pick whichever variant you think provides the most advantage for playing defensively.

B. Challenge Dark Prince

C. Try and go 50 moves without a capture or to force your opponent to make a losing move to avoid it.

If Dark Prince isn't up for it then I'd be happy to play one.

cookie monster:
I surmise that the 50-move draw rule in chess was based on empirical data from games played at the highest level and player input from masters and grandmasters.

No single game or match would have been a reasonable test of the rule. I personally think the best test of such a draw rule for Espionage would be one in which many of the highest level players evaluate a variety of game positions and determine the least number of moves without a capture to advance towards a win for each position. Those positions from which no clear advantage can be consistently developed should be excluded. Even if the advantage is not always in favor of the same side for a given position the result will be included if the position consistently leads to a win.
From the data of these positions, the number of moves without capture to bring the game to a win should tabulated. The maximum number of moves (from the various positions) will not necessarily be the threshold for the draw rule, but likely will be a smaller number. That is, as in chess, though some positions may be winnable, the excessive number of moves to accomplish it with solid play on both sides will justify calling it a draw by rule. Ultimately, the number of moves for the draw rule should be based on what is usually reasonable for top level players.

I decline participating in the test suggested by cookie monster.

Dark Prince:

I suspect, though I do not, that the 50 move rule in chess was arbitrary. I believe it was later discovered that there are certain positions arising in K+B+N vs K endgames where a forced win exists that takes more than 50 moves to achieve against best play.

Also, this isn't about testing the reasonableness of 50 or 60 turns as a draw threshold; this is about testing Nothingness' claim that he can go 50+ moves at the start of the game without allowing a piece being captured at, presumably, anything less than great risk to his opponent.

I agree with Nothingness that defending is generally an advantageous (if boring) strategy, but I disagree in the level of advantage that it brings. I think he is over-estimating it. I have only played against someone blatantly trying for a draw (or to provoke something reckless by turtling) three times (all against The Limbaugh Express) and none of those games went anywhere near 50 moves without a capture nor left me at any risk afterwards. Could I attack blindly against, say, jonaron without expecting to get the worse of it? Probably not, but the only case where that matters is when I enter a game against jonaron needing a win and he needs a draw (a multigame match or tournament perhaps) so that is a position that we have already put ourselves in by playing decisive games.

The proper way to test that would be, likely to, set up various defensive positions in each game and determine how well they can be attacked without knowing any of the pieces. The 10x10 boards would be more interesting.

In the end, however, it still comes down to whether the attacking player wants to accept the defending players tacit draw offer or to attack and the turn limit rule just makes accepting the implied draw that much easier.

cookie monster:
In chess, a player with a material disadvantage may play for a draw rather than resigning (a draw is better than a loss). With the 50-move rule, it is up to the player with the material advantage to advance the position (a win is better than a draw). It's a good idea in an inferior (unlikely winnable) position to play for a draw. That outcome is more reasonably attainable with a draw rule.
K+B+N vs K endgames (in which the B & N aren't in a trap position where one can't avoid capture) are winnable in less than 50 moves by a skilled player.

If by "arbitrary" you mean 50 moves instead of 46 or 53, I agree. Otherwise, based on the things I've read about the history of the rule, I don't think the rule is arbitrary. I think it was well thought out. It takes into account the standard mates and a margin of error for accomplishing them as well as the moves for pawn advancement/promotion and captures.

There is already a 50-move precedent for an Espionage draw rule (35 for the small board variations). Deviating from that precedent is arbitrary if not capricious.

Dark Prince: This is an excellent idea but with the small variation of espionage there are certain setups that are UNBEATABLE. Luckily te random volcano feature prevents you from getting this unbeatble setup applied everytime. This was the case at IYT. Ialwayswinsam and myself had a setup that was unbeatable and caused us to have games last well into the 300 move range without a capture..ugghh