There's draw in very RARE cases.
lolwut? At the master level a draw is how about one third of games end.
I don't have business with math. I'm just playing chess here. Idc how much percent but in a normal game 1 side wins.
If you don't like the rules then play another game.
The rules apply to everyone, not just you. And sometimes it requires skill to avoid a draw. Would you prefer to be more sportsmanlike and just plain LOSE? 'Think' about it.
Good point. It's early in the morning for me because I just got up at the crack of noon. But maybe you mean how could that position be reached? The only possible way without a mate (in two) being on seems to be a R sacrifice on g7 with Black's K on g8. If that was the case, Black has to accept the sacrifice. Black's previous move may have been Qc3 to a3.
Not strictly speaking the only possible way.
If the White queen were on f4 it would be more realistic.
...
Nice example, but you missed a mate in 1.
im dumb lol
It is possible to bar double repetition of a position from the legal play options. In the eastern game of Go even the first repetition is banned and it works well there. Chess is of different character. There is quite a good chance that after a number of checks there remains no other opportunity for a king than to repeat some earlier position twice. That, by definition, then is called checkmate - with the king in check and no legal place to go. Which means that the side with the overwhelming material advantage loses the game. Is that what anyone wants?
Btw, it's not the whole story since something similar might happen to the check giving side. If that is the side which wants to repeat twice first then that move is of course illegal as well which might terminate the checking harassment of the king. It is kind of hard to predict which side runs into the illegal repetition first. You really need to zoom in on the exact positions and the sides on move
Why doesn't this person play darts instead of chess?
Yes, I have fallen for stalemate. Did I cry? No, I tried to learn. I have also used stalemate to save myself from a lost game.
One of the other ways to simplify the repetition rule is to chop off one repetition. Now It is a sort of a last chance rule as no one technically needs to repeat in order to win. But it complicates keeping track of the repetitions. Yet another way for online games is to permit the game interface to automatically end the games after the 2nd repeat. Currently there is only the 5 repetition automatic draw rule which is insanely long. And there are more ways no protect decent players from administrative overload. Chess is about knowledge and calculations but not about memorizing game positions. If that's your hobby, there are loads of TV quizzes and quiz apps for you 
TV quizzes? Do bright people have a TV nowadays? Nobody I know.
Personally I do not like underwater basket making competitions. So I keep clear of them. Do we really want to simplify chess? Have it as a competitor to Bingo? Yes, keeping track of repetitions is complicated. And yes, I have lost because of the rules of chess. Do I go home crying? No, I think 'I'll have to watch it better next time'. Chess is about learning, not changing the rules to suit oneself.
And it takes skill to be stalemated to avoid a loss. Who wants to lose?
TV quizzes? Do bright people have a TV nowadays? Nobody I know.
Personally I do not like underwater basket making competitions. So I keep clear of them. Do we really want to simplify chess? Have it as a competitor to Bingo? Yes, keeping track of repetitions is complicated. And yes, I have lost because of the rules of chess. Do I go home crying? No, I think 'I'll have to watch it better next time'. Chess is about learning, not changing the rules to suit oneself.
And it takes skill to be stalemated to avoid a loss. Who wants to lose?
Yes, only bright people have TV nowadays. It has been measured and proved that the social media on mobiles make our kids stupid. TV is less harmful as it does not filter the information that reaches you to only those things you want to hear and talk about.
The point about such things as repetitions and 50 moves is that they are not in the character of chess. Until the 19th century nobody played with a clock or such rules. It took hold when people introduced economy in the game, making as much money as possible in as little time as possible. No one could argue you are a better or worse chess player depending on whether or not you have a personal scribe with you keeping track of the time and record issues. Which is definitely different for stalemate which is very similar to checkmate in the skills required to detect or use them. In fact, I have never met a player excellent at checkmating and very poor at stalemating. Suggest that to a GM and he will laugh it away.
Thanks for your answer. I will rush out and buy a TV. Frankly no I will not, the programs in UK are really designed for the lowest mentality. I have never thought about the financial aspects of chess, I thought it was one of the few 'sports' devoid of the financial element. BTW I play 5 minute chess, less time for opponent to cheat. Am I correct?
... BTW I play 5 minute chess, less time for opponent to cheat. Am I correct?
Yes. Also less time for either player to think.
I hate people who hate this rule. If I can force a draw (get 1/2 a point), why should I be "more sporting" and let someone simply beat me? That is just dumb.
Chessflyfisher has got some good common sense. And so has Optimised.
The number of times I have gone 'phew!!' to get that half point. Am I detecting the snowflakes trying to invade this thread?? It is bad enough with the gl*b*ll Wa*mi*g ''intellectuals'' trying to take over.
The Gruppenfurher in charge banned me . My crime? Telling the truth.
There is nothing wrong with the repetition rule as a practical way to curb game pollution and duration. It is one of the valid ways to get a draw. What is wrong is the idea that players need to keep track of the repetitions where that is clearly a chore - like a queen chasing a king on a board with large open spaces where it is hard to tally the precise reps of every position. In online environments I would always favour the game GUI supporting the players by warnings or interventions. There are interesting ways to do that for instance each player might have the option to instruct the GUI to claim a draw for him whenever the sit arises. And may change that setting at any time during the game. I would call that the no_bookkeeping option. Nobody said that the FIDE rules are fair as they are and cannot be improved upon - especiaily in computer games.
It's a very wise rule. Not because it is a draw because everyone can see it is a draw. It is wise because it terminates the game and permits the players to go home. And to have a good night sleep. And to wake up refreshed. And to have another fun game tomorrow. That's why.
So would forcing the one repeating the move while in the losing position to lose the match instead of drawing it. Which would make far more sense.
It's a very wise rule. Not because it is a draw because everyone can see it is a draw. It is wise because it terminates the game and permits the players to go home. And to have a good night sleep. And to wake up refreshed. And to have another fun game tomorrow. That's why.
So would forcing the one repeating the move while in the losing position to lose the match instead of drawing it. Which would make far more sense.
Forcing a player to not make the best move would make no sense.
How refreshing that there is nothing about global warming here.