I hate the threefold repetition rule

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.

You would not survive a Star Trek Mirror Universe episode.

In a Mirror Universe, things are done in a different way, with a different reasoning.

That's just a TV Sci-Fi metaphor.

It's in our real world.

Another descendant of Chaturanga exists. Chinese Chess. Go tell them they are stupid.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/i-hate-the-threefold-repetition-rule?page=15#comment-97371421

And that too is a metaphor for the bigger picture of life.

People do things differently for a different reason.

As the saying goes, "There's more than one way to skin a cat."

Not understanding different ideas is your detriment, in this real life.

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.

Are you stupid? I'll answer for you. Yes, you are stupid.

Mirror Universe is a metaphor, not an actual right is left place.

As I said, "There's more than one way to skin a cat."

There is no "right" way. In fact, the word "right" is "wrong". Right hand, left hand. We have 2 hands, which are mirror images of each other.

You don't get it. To the Chinese, we are playing chess the "wrong" way. Correction. They would think we are playing chess "another" way.

Great to see you kids are making friends.

Funny isn't it?

Western Chess is played one way.

And Chinese Chess is played another way.

And you think you are right and the other way is wrong. And vice versa.

That is the perfect metaphor for what is wrong with the world.

My personal opinion. This not because I'm Vietnamese and genetically Chinese.

Chinese Chess is more correct. It is closer to Chaturanga than Western Chess.

China's religion is Buddhism, which came from Hinduism. China is closer to India than the West.

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.

Explain your logic. If you can. Please.

One of the many differences in the rules.

Firstly "International" Chess is a misnomer, a mis-naming. It is more correct to say Western Chess.

In Western Chess, you can perpetual check for a stalemate. That is the "proper" way.

In Chinese Chess, you cannot perpetual check. You have to make another move.

Why is one rule proper for one chess and not proper for another chess? (both came from the same source).

Trick question. It can't be.

One way is just one way. Another is another way.

It could easily be that in Western Chess, you cannot perpetual check.

It could easily be the other way, because the other way exists.

Here's a good one. Suppose we actually live in a Mirror Universe.

In Western Chess, you cannot perpetual check for a draw.

In Chinese Chess, you can perpetual check for a draw.

Which way is "proper"?

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.

You're stupid.

In America, people drive on the "right" side of the road.

In England, (Britain, UK, whatever it's called) people drive on the left side.

That's a real Mirror Universe there.

Hmm. Is driving on the "right" side of the road in America the "right" way?

So If I'm talking about America, I don't bring up England?

Stupid.

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.

Krammik proposes a "new" rule: No castling.

https://www.chess.com/news/view/new-alphazero-paper-explores-chess-variants

Firstly, that is an "old" rule.

No castling existed in Chaturanga.

And it exists in Chinese Chess,

Chinese is more correct.

It already exists in Chinese Chess.

As I was saying, an alternate of Western Chess exists, as if you're in The Mirror Universe, with opposite rules.

Chinese Chess.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/i-hate-the-threefold-repetition-rule?page=15#comment-97371421

And to be considered the best Chess player, you have to play 3 games.

Western Chess, Chinese Chess, Backgammon.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/i-hate-the-threefold-repetition-rule?page=13#comment-97349729

Two for the price of one.

Castling.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/castling-is-the-worst-rule-in-chess?page=4#comment-97400837