I hate the threefold repetition rule

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?

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?

yes.

The three move repetition rule is very much in the character of chess. Would you really want to play a game where your opponent repeated moves ten times at every opportunity because he knew you were tired? The repetition rule makes chess better.

Yes. Also less time for either player to think.

No ... "can" get out of it. And in a stalemate, who wins? The one who is stalemated, I think. Serve the other player right.

All in all, people complaining about the 3-move repetition rule must be brain-dead because it simply prevents an endless repetition of checks.

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. 

Here's an example of a game that was agreed drawn, which I played a while back. My opponent could block my king by repeating moves so, since that would lead to three-fold repetition, we agreed a draw. He was up in material and I was trying to press for the win. Both sides have the capability of winning and no-one was checking anyone. So if this had to be a win, who would be awarded the win?

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.

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.

And of course, no-one is "in a losing position" when they have a move that doesn't lose, so it would make a bit of a mockery of it.

How would you even assess that someone was losing, when they weren't!?

No absolutely not. That's just bad rhetoric and not a logical costruction.

It seems that for you, fantasy is real life!

Anyway, I've long thought that if ever stalemate is abolished, the winning side should be the one that's forced to move into check.

Oh?

Just remember that a lone king can stalemate a king and a-pawn/h-pawn, so a lone king would then be able to win on time against an opponent who still had an a-pawn and/or h-pawn.