I hate the threefold repetition rule

Great to see you kids are making friends.

I don't agree due to what a 3 fold repetition is. In Chess, it isn't a cheap tactic. It is a serious answer to some positions as well. I rarely blunder draws due to this, in fact I can only recall one game but when I do I know it is my fault. It is no different than blundering checkmate, it is the same thing in function just the result is better.

Yes, it was very much focused on what you wrote "Keeping the rules up to date = changing the rules on a whim" which is precisely what updates are not about. Updates are commonly targeted at handling unexpected situations that came up. The more fundamental changes come with new versions or new products. Had I intended to write about core changes to the system then I would have attached it to a different post.

What you write about "the value of conservatism" comes from nowhere. You seem to need it to occupy some imagined moral high ground.

The way that is proper is the one that follows the rules of its game. Different games have different rules and those different games give people more options to decide which games they like to participate in.

Celebrate diversity and do not try to force every game to be the same so that people have limited options on what they can do.

Precisely! Apart from the rule updates released about every 10 years to keep chess grounded in the world. I categorized those in my earlier post and made clear why it is inevitable. Until the world finally turns away from orthodox chess when its fields are grazed, we should stick as close to the core chess rules as possible. Or split off to a game of your own making.

so it's better for an opponent to just keep checking you over and over 100 times because they can? WHAT?!

Oh I thought it had something to do with most people being right handed, since right turns are far more common than left ones and any left turn can be made with 3 rights so..

That being so, you might come up against a player who won't agree, and just plays on and on and on. Perhaps he has a teammate in the same tournament and wants to leave you too tired to play against him.

Then you just walk away, or headbutt him depending on your inclination.

It's a game. A very good game. Tournament rules are something for the organisers to sort out.

Not quite a Mirror Universe.

Most people are right handed.

When you change gear in a traditional car that normally leaves one hand on the wheel, and at the point you change, very often you need to steer. It's advisable to have your best hand on the steering wheel in that case, because steering needs more accurate manipulation than changing gear.

With the majority of cars having the gear lever in the middle of the car, that means that driving on left, as in England, is preferable to the practice in America, (The States, U.S. of A., whatever it's called).

Of course, the distinction is due to disappear.

In both FIDE and US Chess the TD/arbiter can call the 75-move rule (it was added for that very reason, so the tournament was not perpetually held up by players that didn't want to call the 50-move rule). The 50-move rule is the one that both players claim. As you see in 9.3 the draw has to be claimed. In 9.6 no claim is needed and the arbiter merely informs the players that the game has ended. In dead positions the arbiter also merely informs the players that the game is ended. There could be a long laundry list of what is looked for but 5.2.2 leaves it up to the arbiter to determine whether or not the position is dead (in most cases it is obvious but there are some bizarre positions that would frustrate an arbiter or computer.

FIDE still has a 50-move rule (see 9.3 below). Interestingly enough, this appears to be an urban legend that has taken in even GMs (I had to correct a GM on this about a month ago).

5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:

9.3.1 he/she indicates his/her move, which cannot be changed, by writing it on the paper scoresheet or entering it on the electronic scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his/her intention to make this move which will result in the last 50 moves by each player having been made without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or

9.3.2 the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:

9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.

9.6.2 any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.

Wow, another cannon ball flying over. Do you have any clue what the word hypocrisy means? Or what language is? Are all your posts loose cannons? And do you always top them of with "sorry"?

That is how the rules of Go used to be - in Japan. Not just did you have to "sit it out" but in the torturous Seiza way as well (traditional japenese posture) and without a clock. Another weird rule was that drawing games was technically "possible" (in those days) but not "acceptable". So the players had to replay the game! The ultimate fun consisted of a 2-step process (a) the game is drawn after an infinite sit-down, followed by (b) a replay of the game. I feel for the audience.

That is not my diagnosis of the current rules though it is possible there is some clarification added for the arbiters I am unaware of.

Unlike the 50-move rule, no role is assigned to the arbiter for the 75-move rule. Same as for instance for checkmate and stalemate. For these and other situations the arbiter only intervenes when there is some sort of disagreement. The players are uninterested to terminate or they would have claimed the draw long ago. No disagreement. But the truth is that only the computer is capable of managing the 75-M rule properly just as it manages that you can't play your bishop as a rook. Without computer you are in a worse situation than with just the 50-move rule with an even longer move count ahead. Talk about tournament schedules! Same of course for 5R but even harder to manage as there are likely many positions with 2, 3 and 4 repeats which may reach the finish line before the others, You have to keep track of all of them.

Not my interpretation either. Under FIDE laws 75 moves terminates the game without the arbiter being involved. 

But the relevant USCF rule is:

14K.

Director declares draw for lack of progress.If one or both of the following occur(s) then the TD may declare the game drawn:

 1. The same position has appeared, as in 14C, for at least five consecutive alternate moves by each player.

2. Any consecutive series of 75 moves have been completed by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence 

So when 75 moves is reached under USCF rules either one of the players must claim it (under the 50 move rule) or the arbiter must claim it before the game terminates. If moves are made beyond 75 they remain part of the game (unlike the FIDE case). A claim by the TD is not mandatory.

Considering the discussion, the following link is interesting with a member of the FIDE rules commission discussing edge cases with the 75-move rule, 5-fold repetition and resigning in an unlosable position.

https://rcc.fide.com/2021/11/08/questions-answers-november-2021/

Also, for a game to be rated by FIDE it must be in a FIDE-rated competition. Any non-rated game is invisible to FIDE. The same applies to games rated by USCF (they must have TDs/arbiters and follow the applicable rules of chess - FIDE competition rules if the games are also FIDE rated and USCF rules if they are only USCF-rated).

If we are not talking about FIDE-rated or USCF-rated games then things can get a bit murkier. This site uses an approximation of USCF rules, making the 75-move rule and the 5-fold repetition something that can be programmed in (if it isn't already). The dead position rule is one that may be difficult to program in and is also one that might get overlooked by the players of a game that is not being played with TDs/arbiters. This site has a somewhat inaccurate implementation of whether a flag fall is a draw or a loss (not looking to see if there is a helpmate, or even a forced mate, available to the unflagged player having K+B or K+N).

You say, "FIDE still has a 50-move rule (see 9.3 below)".

True, but whether it applies depends on whether you are playing the game under basic or competition rules.

Of the articles you quote, only the dead position rule is included in the Basic Rules section. Articles beyond 5 fall in the Competition Rules section.

You also say, "There could be a long laundry list of what is looked for but 5.2.2 leaves it up to the arbiter to determine whether or not the position is dead (in most cases it is obvious but there are some bizarre positions that would frustrate an arbiter or computer".

It's the fact that there isn't (and couldn't currently be) a long laundry list of what is looked for that, to my mind, rules out 5.2.2 as an acceptable rule.

The rule is part of the FIDE Basic Rules. 

The sole role of an arbiter (if any) in a game played under those rules appears to be to fulfil the requirement of

4.9 If a player is unable to move the pieces, an assistant, who shall be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to perform this operation.

(One could suspect that the inclusion of that article in Basic Rules is actually a FIDE cock up.) 

So it's left to the players under basic rules to spot when a position is dead. If they can see it's dead they can also agree a draw.

In fact since the introduction of the mandatory 75 move rule in Competition Rules it isn't all that obvious when a position is dead under those rules and they don't need to be bizarre. Is the following position dead?

What I have read about the 75-move rule is indeed excellent. And it is exactly what I have been telling everyone in the past years, up to and including the signing of the scoresheet!

I have another question of similar relevance - and it is relevant - which I will pose later. After I read the remainder of your link. Perhaps the answer is in there already!