I hate the threefold repetition rule

That is what we agree on! For instance I know that FIDE rules are inconsistent with definitions around "legal moves" Which caused everyone to be extremely confused in the field of orthodox retrograde compositions. Which has stalled the whole field.

Yes, you don't want to know about compositions - though that is the place with a much greater awareness and knowledge of FIDE rules than game chess players. So I'll summarize it differently. What I tried to convey is that the composing community has known from the outset that the stated objective is not part of the core rules - whatever FIDE writes. It is in the free choice domain which is beyond the rules.

But of course you already knew that! You have undoubtedly solved compositions in your life with the stated objective to draw! And you did that and you never complained that the challenge was not in accordance with the chess rules. Because your intuition understood straight away what defined chess and what was optional.

I lost 350 blitz points from my peak rating lol

In a few months. My peak was 1818 now it's under 1500!

Conventionally, a "half win" means you get more points than a draw but less than a win, and your opponent gets less points than a draw but more than a loss. This is not what you are describing.

On your other point:

1) The checking player can be regarded in a dominant postion because they are the closest to checkmate. Perpetual check generally invovles multiple instances where there is only one legal move: if that square were to be removed somehow on any of these moves it would be checkmate.

2) Using the analogy of a war, if a king is eternally running for their life away from an opposing army and the other is not; they are losing, regardless of how big their army is.

3) It is true that the checker in perpetual check is generally losing otherwise. However this is a circular argiment, as it is only true *because* a perpetual check ends in a draw. If it ended in a half-win for the checker (even if it were only 5.1 points going by your system), some people in otherwise somewhat winning positions would be incentivised to go for a perpetual check; and because of that winning postion they would find it easier to do so.

What is all this weird arguing??

How would you deal with threefold repitition without check?

Dominance is so subjective. White is +3, but their queen is on the run. Black is forcing white, so they are dominantish, but it is difficult to provide one rule that Fide could implement to guarantee that the 'dominant' player always gets points. The rules are how they are for a reason. If you are foolish enough to blunder your advantage, but your opponent was losing enough that they cannot checkmate, there should be a draw. It makes sence machanically, too. Forcing other moves leads to wierd stalemates, is not logical, and is unfair to the player who has to make another move, and if no other moves are forced, it will be a draw by 50 move repitition through the 50 move rule.

I like that winning means checkmate. That the inferior side can still have drawing chances makes the game far more intersting than otherwise, imho.

Yeah imagine if you didn't have to check the king to win, the side with the most material, even a rook pawn would win. Even insufficient mating material would cease to exist as a king and knight and king and bishop can stalemate.

FIDE is not dominant in the world of composition but it is most certainly dominant in the world of game chess. Your opinion about that means nothing. It's a point of reality not preference. The WFCC orgnizationally split off FIDE some decades ago but they cooperate well together. Composers are free to define the rules for their chess puzzles any way they like but they will commonly avoid overlaps with existing game types. A large body of compositions however is still orthodox. To retain the connections with the world of game chess they decided to bandwagon on the FIDE-rules - with necessary modifications of their own. That's the only reason why you will find great compositions from the composition-domain posted on chess.com. The puzzle makers and the solvers speak the same language.

You just carry on thinking it Optimissed. The rest of us can safely ignore you.

If you don’t want that to happen then just don’t let yourself be checked 3 times. There’s ways to avoid checks. The question is ridiculous because if the rule wasn’t there then the game would go on for ever and the players would eventually run out of time. But who wants to wait until you run out of time and possibly lose? The rule is there so that you don’t lose time and run out. Because isn’t a draw better than losing?

I think what the OP is suggesting is to make repetition a win or a loss for the player perpetually checking, which would be absurd.

No it is not ridiculous - the only thing that would be meaningful, is if the player who first reaches 3 repetitions, loses the game. Current form is ridiculous - when player clearly has a losing position, and has to resort to this kind of laming, that player should lose. It almost feels like you're being trolled when people resorts to this.

Right, so a player who finds the resource to make legal moves such as perpetual check to prevent themselves from being checkmated, should lose for making legal moves? So I guess if my opponent has a massive pawn storm rolling down the board on one side I shouldn't be able to castle the other way, as it would be trolling to let his pawns come that far, and then just leap away to the other side saying "ha ha can't get me!"

En passant is ridiculous. Moving a piece and then being able to take a piece not on that square is trolling and a scam.

Pawns capturing differently from how they move is absurd. If that's the case than a queen should capture like a knight and vice versa. Rooks should capture like bishops and vice versa, and of course any piece reaching the back rank must be demoted to a pawn, but this will not count as a pawn move for the purposes of the 50 move rule.

there are no stupid rules...only stupid people.

This would effectively make it a draw anyway because you can force an acceptance of a draw offer by threatening perpetual check.

Let's make stalemate a "half draw"!!! The person stalemating gets 1 point and the stalemate person gets half a point LOL!!