I hate the threefold repetition rule

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!!

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!