I hate the threefold repetition rule

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.

I've never been very interested in compositions.

I disagree with what you're saying. You're stating something as if it's correct and alternative opinions are incorrect. You are certainly of the strong opinion that what you say is right. However, I wouldn't accept it as correct unless you presented a proper argument for it and I agreed that the argument was correct. That is, both valid in that your conclusion necessarily follows from the premises you may propose, and true, in that the premises are correct or may be accepted as correct in a perhaps limited frame of reference regarding chess laws, the world of chess compositions etc.

I think in this question, what you think is right is that someone else doesn't understand something and you do.

I'm afraid that when I did my philosophy degree, I learned bad habits. My stated aim was to do a philsophy degree with no more than 18 hours work per week over two years. That was because there were two years left in the degree course when I swapped from computing to philosophy. I tended to skim read philosophers and assume they were wrong in some way. If I noticed one being, in my opinion, right a lot of the time, then I would become interested in such a person. If they were difficult to understand, I made a value judgement on them to decide if it was worth trying to understand them. I suppose you have to be self-confident, to do that.

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.

I just lost 230 points yesterday. Trouble is, it'll take a couple of weeks to build them back. It's hard work. They're awful players around the 1500 to 1600 mark but they try to move fast and they don't resign. They'll never be any good but they can be hard to beat.

Why even should the "dominant player" get the points? Defence is just as important, so all told it's a childish idea.

I'm not interested in irony unless it was from a person whose intellect I respect. Just pointing that out. I mean, I could point it out sarcastically or ironically (more whimsical?) but then again, loop back to the first sentence.

I'm disgruntled because the English Chess Federation went over to the dark side. However, the difference is that I don't take FIDE seriously and hope that as time progresses, others will also stop taking them seriously. I don't really think it matters in the field of orthodox retrograde cpmpositions. That is, I do really think that it doesn't matter.

It's just a form of words and FIDO does make mistakes. I had no idea that FIDE is assumed to be dominant in chess puzzle composition. Why should that be? I don't think there's any reason for it. I mean, it could be said to hold for Baroque music. Think of a modern day pop music record producer. Should it be assumed that Telemann composed his concertos incorrectly?

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.

Is your opinion worth anything? less than mine, I should have thought.

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

Why don't you then?

I can recognise the personality types by the writing style. You're equally full of yourselves and there's no good reason for it. It isn't even about orthodoxy versus unorthodoxy so much as you wish to establish your authority.

At least the other one, Arisktotle, is the more consistent and will accept a good point if he recognises it. Your self-esteem must be lower.

You're also dishonest, since you will always deny making mistakes/getting caught out in your attempts to deceive others. Arisktotle doesn't attempt to deceive others but you certainly do, which makes your opinion regarding pretty much anything more or less worthless.

It would be possible to carry on a meaningful conversation with Arisktotle but not so with you, because your attempts to get one over on everyone who doesn't automatically agree with you or defer to you shows your character for what it is. Much of the time thinly veiled in attempted sarcasm.

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!"