I hate the threefold repetition rule

Two things :

(a) 5 out of 10 points is a half win which is what the repeater is receiving

(b) The one repeating is not in a dominant position as those in a dominant position have no need to repeat and claim draws rather those whose positions are falling apart like watered bread or those who have to in order to not lose they repeat thus making their positions weaker than the person being repeatedly checked. Also why repeater should get 5 out of 10 and non-repeater 9 out of 10 .

I've been an arbiter watching K+P vs K games where the lone K player is the one calling the three-fold repetition of an opponent that didn't want to admit it was a draw. In scholastic tournaments it is common to call three-fold on a player with K+Q (versus lone K) when the K+Q player is clueless and does not know how to checkmate. In those games does the lone King player really deserve 9/10 of a point while the player with additional material only gets 5/10.

What about when the arbiter calls five-fold repetition when both players are shuffling pieces in even positions while hoping for an opponent's mistake that would give them a win.

Should we leave it up to the arbiters to decide when a player gets more than 5/10? After all, didn't the 46-game unfinished Karpov-Kasparov world championship match show that arbiters are never biased?

What about the GM draw openings that bypassed rules against draws before 30 moves? (by playing into well known positions where both sides are forced to repeat to avoid losing)

(a) in your K+Q v K lone draw scenario the side with K+Q gets 9/10 and the side with K gets 5/10

(b) in GM draws it should be 1/10 for GM that entered the well-known draw unless opponent had non-material advantage prior to well-known draw in which case 3/10 could be considered and 9/10 for the one who is forced to repeat after entry into the well-known draw as like with the threefold repetition the repeater could've chosen not to repeat and had no actual positional complusion to enter the well-known draw .

(c) There should be move and material notations on paper through which it can be decided who is repeater and who is non-repeater .

(d) Depends on what the even position is

(b) Also depends on what the "well-known position" is

And (c) the notations on paper will very often tell you both sides are repeaters.

Who repeated first ? They get 5/10 and other 9/10

If players know how to handle time pressure and are only having and making just one move in their mind then the game will never terminate

Anyone attributing any value whatsoever to material in assigning scores to game ends has completely missed the character of chess. It is not monopoly, it is not a commercial enterprise to amass wealth. Chess is only about quality. No-one should ever be rewarded for filling his chess box with prisoners to gain an advantage at the end of the game. It is absolutely bizarre.

Even if second repeater forced them to repeat first?

I think it is self-evident, given that the object of the game is to capture the opponent's king in a situation where the sides move alternately. If the latter's a priority, which it seems to be, which allows no deviation, then the game cannot continue because no move is possible under the laws of the game and no king has been captured. Therefore it's evidently a draw because the game came to an end and no-one won.

It could be a win to the side that's stalemated and I believe that should be the case. where it's believed that stalemate ought to be a win; simply because the side which prevented the other from making a legal move was careless.

This is drivel, however. For the 1000th time, material preponderance is mearely one of the means to winning a game of chess. If someone can't understand that then there's no point talking to them.

Re #402.

You don't half talk a lot of bollocks @Optimissed.

1.4 The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.

1.4.1 The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king is not allowed 

And how is White's move here careless?

Re #403

But not always.

If you don't like the rule, get out and please don't slam the door!

Should white win this game?

Not just win it. Get a medal for forcing that position with a lone king.

That is only true after you established that win/draw and lose are the only 3 options. The discussion was on a more basic level at that point where the scoring of all states was in question. See for instance the posts of Elroch and adityasaxena4. When you say that "the game could not continue in the stalemate position" you exactly repeat what I said. The game ends because there is no legal move. What score that gives is a secondary issue.

The line about the objective is actually meaningless in the rules of play. Whatever the objective of the players is, they still play the game by the same rules. Nothing ends because the objective was reached, it ends because there are no legal moves. Next is the conversion of the situation into a score. The generalized objective of players in a game is to maximize their profit which, in chess, is reflected by the maximized game score. Forget about the FIDE objective which is an over- simplification of the true situation and notably skips over the draw-objective which covers probably like 40% of the efforts of the players in a game.

If Black can't deliver mate with that kind of advantage, they don't deserve to win.

It's hard to tell who's more hilarious in that position, white for losing all of his pieces, or black for getting his pieces into that position.