I hate the threefold repetition rule

The point of the game is to checkmate. It is not to get material or to almost win. Winning is hard. Making it easier to win or giving bonus points for almost winning dilutes the richness of the game.

there is no richness in a game where losers can escape with draws and swindle half points away from winners without the "almost winner" or winners being sufficiently compensated .

That is an "empty" text considering that I gave the examples in the post. Which are precisely the opposite of "whims" but based on answering to the pressures on the chess environment. And these changes have happened so there is no point in claiming that chess players wouldn't allow that to happen.

The "whim"part is what we try to keep from happening - like changing the stalemate rule. Nothing in the competition context or in the ways and means of playing chess would invite or force us to change the stalemate rule. Doing so would have a massive effect on the character of chess, especially endgames. You can rewrite all the theory books about it.

Then how will the game end if they comtinously make the same moves?

There is still the 50 move rule. Three-fold repetition merely shortens the process when only best moves be each side will draw.

Over the years there have been a number of people that have had brainstorms about draws being worth other than 1/2 per player based on which player was deemed to have a "better" position. That would require an analysis by somebody other than the players and I've seen many TDs/arbiters whose analysis abilities were not anywhere near as good as the players, and engines where the horizon effect kept them from seeing far enough to realize that an analysis at a smaller ply-level can be very inaccurate. Looking only at material can be quite erroneous when one player sacrifices material to tie the opponent up and that opponent has to sacrifice back for three-fold repetition (should the player who made the smaller sacrifice be the one to automatically get more points that the other?)

Also remember that when a player runs out of time then FIDE says the player lost if there is any way that the opponent can win, and a change in the scores people have would mean that the player out of time would get the least result available (i.e., if a player got 0.75 for delivering stalemate and 0.25 for being stalemated then if the player had an a-pawn or h-pawn and the opponent had a lone king the potential for the lone king delivering stalemate would result in a player that flags with a ton of material being awarded only 0.25).

When one of them dies.

People who say they dislike the repetition rule are ignorant and not very bright. It's part of chess and rightly so.

I also agree with Jetoba regarding arbiters. They need less involvement and certainly not more. Usually they're arbiters because they want to be involved with chess but they were not that great at it.

I dislike FIDE's interpretation intensely and think the BCF should never have become the ECF and kow-towed to FIDE. Much prefer the USCF's interpretations of things.

You clearly do not understand that the aim of chess is to capture the king and nothing else.

I didn't think you wrote a bad post but you did waffle. Perhaps I thought your examples weren't very focussed but we do seem to agree on the fundamantals. I wasn't so much disagreeing as clarifying.

Also though, I thought your aim was off because you didn't seem to understand the value of conservatism, which is resistance to change at least until change is seen to be necessary.

You keep trying to use Chinese Chess as an example of why whatever you say about chess should be thought by others to be right. Are you confused? If we want to work out what to do in THE universe, we don't go by what people do in a fantasised universe were logic is incorrect. If you dreamed you were in such a universe, all would become clear when you realised that the verbal symbols are all that are reversed.

Great to see you kids are making friends.

I think the way you express yourself in English may often give others an impression which is opposite to that which you hope to convey. It isn't helped by your not being able to recognise good arguments. I get the impression that you're perpetually confused.

When I was in India for 5 months in 1976 I played various different types of Indian Rules chess and won nearly all the games I played with locals. But they didn't think we play their chess in the wrong way. They were quite clear that there was International Rules chess and numerous varieties of Indian Rules.

If Mirror universe is a metaphor but doesn't imply that logic or something else is opposite from reality, all it implies is a sense of mystery conjoured up for fiction. Why call it "mirror" if it isn't a mirror? The impression is as if fantasy has addled your brain. You come over as reasonably clever but no more than that and you certainly shouldn't be calling others "stupid". You stand out more because you're trying to assert your difference from others and not because you're particularly clever.

In your case anything you think is "proper".

We're discussing International Rules chess here and not Chinese chess so clearly, that's what we mean by "correct" or "proper".

We aren't discussing Chinese chess and it doesn't help to keep bringing it up. It's a straw elephant.

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..