I hate the threefold repetition rule

You can carry on playing a game until you're 93 if you like, but your opponent would probably prefer to stop at some point.

They don't. They repeat this like 10 times until the algorithm just gives it a draw.

Three times.

no

it adds complexity to the game, where the winning player has to look out for possibilities by the opponent

All interpretations of chess rules related to the continuum of time or time at all are false. Chess is a mathematical game based on discrete states. That's why modern computer implementations are way more true to the original design thousands of years ago than the mess-ups in between. The introduction of the clock turns deterministic chess into a somewhat nonderterministic version, but there is zero reason to let go of the discrete design model. The reason is obvious. The only part of the clock addition that interacts with the formal chess system is the "flag fall". Nothing else has even the slightest effect on the evaluation of game states, not the allotted time segments, not the increments and not the time penalties after rule infringements. A game still consists of a series of ordered discrete events (changes) where the "flag fall" event can be seamlessly inserted like 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 "flag fall". Nothing happens simultaneously, nothing overlaps, nothing stretches over time. The idea of players having enough time to complete a move is completely alien to the digital computer environment which rules the kingdom of chess today - since that was always always always how chess was designed and perceived by the mathematical mind of the inventor. Therefore, paradoxically, you can lose on the clock though there is no time. You effectively lose on the "flag fall" event and it is digital - on or off. For the very same reason the dead rules cannot and do not interact with time and non-events. Their evaluation like all evaluations align with discrete game states.

That obviously implies that articles like article 4 in the chess laws are not part of the core chess system either. Because chess is still also played physically, random events like meteors drop into our nicely organized chess world and require correction. As long as that is possible we may continue to consider chess a game of discrete ordered states.

I have had that case. I wasn't very good at king and rook checkmate (that time).

Thank you for the comments that clarifies a lot of questions I had about the threefold repetition when I always thought it was that the same piece can't move in the same position three times but it's actually both pieces have to be involved. Wondering can 3 pieces be involved or more??

It's not about any individual pieces or moves it's about positions. The same position has to occur 3 times, that means all pieces are in the same place, castling rights haven't changed and the same player has the next move. What you're implying is repetition of moves, not repetition of position. 

Beautiful

This rule is used by cheaters but they aren't cheating, this is legal

Okay, so picture this:

Your opponent continues to check you for 100 moves with the exact same pattern and neither of you can get out of that never ending cycle, it's just whoever moves faster or has more time wins (excluding games with increment, where the game would literally never end). it would be equally BS if you (person ahead) is lower on time (so same scenario) and it would just be a complete waste of time either way. Removing / banning the rule doesn't make the game more fair, it just makes it so whoever the hell has more time wins, and in a game with increment, the game will never end as both of you will probably just premove, so it's just whoever has to go first. It's equally BS and just a complete waste of time.

OK. What u say makes sense. But bro, u r about to eat someone's queen with forking and he doesn't wanna lose the queen(of course). And now that guy U r playing against is repeating moves not to lose the queen. So tell me, should this game be draw, or should he lose the game 4 cheating? Tell me that.

The game should be a draw because it's not cheating.

What if you checkmate someone in that same scenario when you're about to lose your queen instead of just drawing them? Should checkmate when you're down material also be removed?

Checking constantly is not against the rules or cheating... The only variant which checking constantly is viable for a ban is bughouse or crazyhouse.

wait how do you get banned from bughouse by 3 fold lol

OK. I imagine it's me. But still bro, it's annoying. Im about to lose my queen let's say. Then thats my mistake. At that situation, i need to accept he played better than me. As simple as that. I'm not gonna try to end it in draw just bcs im about to lose. Thats being cry baby. And just a reminder, im not one of em.

Stop avoiding my question. I'm asking you - Should checkmates when down material also be banned? And stalemates? Heck, should chess just be "when you get more material you win"?

Dude, u got my point in a WHOLE different way. Did i said those rules should remove?NO. Just ending the game in a draw which is OBVIOUSLY not a draw, thats a bad move than. Just give me 1 reason 3 rep. rule is important? Now a question from me.

If you can force a perpetual, it is by definition NOT a winning position. If your opponent was better before, that means they blundered. And shouldn't a blunder be punished? But what in your eyes makes getting a draw different from getting checkmate? You want 3 fold repetition gone, but why do you still want to allow people to checkmate their opponent from a worse position after a blunder? What's the big difference?