I hate the threefold repetition rule

I say that if you put your opponent in stalemate, you lose as punishment for your sloppy play.

Yes, and resigning should get you 1/7 of a point and your opponent 6/7.

Similar to what I was saying . If there are 2 players (a) and (b) and (a) is down material and went for a threefold repetition against (b) then (a) gets 1/2 or 5/10 of a point and (b) gets 9/10 of a point .

The en passant rule was created to balance another "ridiculous" rule - which is the two step pawn advance The latter was added to facilitate quick development from a starting position with a large open space. Not to bypass a square where it would be captured had it played its standard single square advance. What is illogical under that argument is that only a pawn is permitted to execute the en passant capture. Why not a bishop, or a knight?

Btw, there are many other interesting options to change the en passant rule. For instance: "the e.p. capture can be delayed as long as neither side has played another pawn move on the board" Interesting for checkmate problems, endgame studies and retrograde problems! Ultimately, many rules are maintained or changed because it's interesting, e.g. stalemate.

Talk about ridiculous, that is ridiculous. You can do a lot with scoring end states without making the game system rules inconsistent. But that doesn't make it rational on a conceptual level.

Giving dead positions 0 points comes from your psyche to punish people (rule makers and players) for manifesting some weird device nobody ever asked your permission for and you deem completely unnecessary. But obviously you do not understand the dead position rule. For instance, a position is dead when the only move you can play, would stalemate the opponent. Why sentence both players to death for that event?

Better 1/2.5e. Given that it's an irrational concept, it should be an irrational score.

I was joking guys lol, just a parady of the people who are actually sincere in their insanity about changing current chess rules!

I see! It's kind of hard to make the difference in this thread. In the composition domain discussing rules is daily business as "rules" are not fixed. Also composers often combine rule sets of various types which they add to the FIDE base and e.g. the retrograde conventions. The simultaneous projection of "more or less" independent dimensions into one fairy task often leads to issues which need to be resolved. For instance "rex inclusive" and "rex exclusive" are common additions to indicate that a fairy rule applies to kings or not.

So... Current rules are PERFECT? No need to change anything?

Current rules are Currently Perfect. Everyone can have a Perfect day of playing chess today. But in 10 years time there will be changes to what then will seem no longer perfect anymore. One thing I can predict within some decades: Chapter I. The FIDE Laws of Chess960.

Why is rules perfect today, and not perfect in 10 years ?

Perhaps you ought to ask the Buddha . Life will change/evolve forever. I wrote an earlier post about that in this thread which I will not repeat. Examples: 1. We know it will by empirical evidence. There have been 8 versions of the FIDE chess laws since 1977. The only reason you don't know them is because you don't know them. Wake up! 2. Professional players want to play chess, not learn and innovate theory for 10 hours per day to make the difference in one or two games. And they don't like to be beaten by players only reeling off the moves invented for them by computers. So they want more options of play to quickly take them into unknown territory. Like in Chess960. In the game of Go, computers today are the top dogs as well, but their influence is relatively smaller than in chess. Purely because the Go-board is so large that engines stay far away from analyzing all possible variations.

Yes, chess is one of those few games that is perfect.

I hate people who hate this rule. Seriously, if you can't handle it, move on to another game. Mic drop!

Generally it is a bad idea to make war with rules. But rules are born from concepts which determine the character of the game or sport. For instance, the central figure in chess is the king. It would be out-of-character to buy the revival of your king by donating material to your opponents army. Another one. Chess is a two player game. It would be out-of character to allow a coach to shout hints from the sidelines, whereas this is totally acceptable in soccer. Different concepts. People may always argue about the concepts of a game and that may lead to rule changes in the long run. A well known example is "how long swimmers may stay under water before emerging in a formal competition". How much is swimming under water out-of-character and for which swimming styles? Which has led to rule changes over time.

After seeing higher ranked (in FIDE) arbiters, a looming 75-move rule situation does not, in and of itself, trigger a dead position.

If the rule is to stand on your head and drink hot chocolate on exactly move 17. And you know its the rule. Then it should not cause you problems. Its jus not as obvious as stalemate. But it took both players to cause it.

Thanks for the info.

That doesn't alter my position that it does according to the FIDE laws. It only puts me at odds with additional eminent people.

I have to agree that my argument is shaky, but not because the 75M rule is somehow different from, say, the stalemate rule. Rather because the dead position rule is itself self referent.

The self reference comes in the phrase, "neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves". The word "can" is necessary to rule out series of legal moves such as seriesmover mates which result in checkmate but cannot be played within the rules of the game. (Arts. 1 & 4 prevent it.) But as the rules stand the rules of the game include the dead position rule itself, which in Russell's logic at any rate renders the rule strictly meaningless.

It allows you, for example, to assert that the position after the first move is dead. If you're up against an opponent you don't fancy, simply stop the clocks after his first move and claim a dead position. If the arbiter shows you Scholar's Mate or some such, you can agree that it's a series of legal moves ending in checkmate, but assert the players can nevertheless not checkmate with that or any other series because the position is dead and that immediately terminates the game.

All the rule then tells you is that the position is dead if the position is dead, but if it's not dead then it's not dead (which you probably already suspected).

The problem would be eliminated if it were phrased, "neither player could checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves if this art did not apply", which is the way I think most people take it.

But the self reference problem is not related to the discussion about 5R/75M. A player cannot checkmate with a sequence of legal moves that encounters either the 75M rule prior to checkmate or the 5R rule even in a continuation where the dead position rule doesn't apply.

But in your opinion @Optimissed, anyone who is awarded an FRS is a bit of a bird-brain in comparison with yourself. (Some people might suspect a touch of jealousy.)

Never really fancied doing that.

Pray explain to us why Russell's interpretation is confused.