I hate the threefold repetition rule
Sort:
I do have to admit the threefold repetition rule gets me almost all the time in endgame situations. I’ve tried my best to watch out for it, but most of the time when it occurs it’s my opponent using the rule.
DaveRochelson wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
The main idea is to allow the losing side to escape defeat in a losing position.
Right. That's dumb.
Okay, look at it this way. It's another rule which if you break, is a stupid blunder. If you're in a winning position and get perpetual checked, that's honestly on you and frankly, a skill issue.
It's like asking why castling is legal.
me too
Jan 5, 2023
0
#166
The_Shashophille wrote:
DaveRochelson wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
The main idea is to allow the losing side to escape defeat in a losing position.
Right. That's dumb.
Okay, look at it this way. It's another rule which if you break, is a stupid blunder. If you're in a winning position and get perpetual checked, that's honestly on you and frankly, a skill issue.
EXACTLY!!
I see many uses to this rule:
- Prevent some spam-premoving in gamemodes with more strict time controls.
- Get to the point, get the game to end when a player otherwise winning can't escape checks from a loosing opponent.
- Force players to get proactive if they want to avoid a draw.
In competitive chess, in tournaments, players need to make points. When the stakes are high, this rule becomes a threat which forces them to get creative and play more risky moves. In competitive chess, going for a draw can also be a strategy to win in the bigger scheme of things.
Jan 6, 2023
0
#168
@DaveRochelson's fault. Don't blame the rule. Blame yourself as this is a skill error
It's a stupid rule. If a player has to resort to such measures - he clearly has run out of options, and has a losing position.
The 'threefold repetition rule' should apply to the player who initiates the check, and repeats the same move three times. That player should then lose the game.
My bad - any move really.
grimme_johnny wrote:
It's a stupid rule. If a player has to resort to such measures - he clearly has run out of options, and has a losing position.
The 'threefold repetition rule' should apply to the player who initiates the check, and repeats the same move three times. That player should then lose the game.
Except he doesn't have a losing position because the opponents king is undefended. The entire point of the game is to attack the other guys king while defending your own. It doesn't matter how much you have pointed at your opponents king, if you've left yours completely defenseless you don't deserve to win.
The threefold repetition is useful. If a player in a losing position can force a repetition of moves, he can do so because that's just how chess works, it can't magically be stopped. He can then prevent his opponent from winning.
Such a possibility forces his opponent to play carefully in a way he doesn't throw up the game by preventing any forced repetition of moves. After all, chess is all about positional strategy, not material. If your opponent can force a draw, it means that your are in a bad position, not a good position. It means that you are not winning, therefore not deserving to win.
Also, this rule prevents toxic players from stalling the game in such positions or to simply fight for who loses on time first by repeating the same move hundreads of times while there are still many minutes on the clock.
grimme_johnny a écrit :
It's a stupid rule. If a player has to resort to such measures - he clearly has run out of options, and has a losing position.
The 'threefold repetition rule' should apply to the player who initiates the check, and repeats the same move three times. That player should then lose the game.
I personally disagree. Having to prevent forced repetition from your opponent is part of the strategy, part of the fun in chess. It adds a new strategical element to take care of. It makes games more exciting and forces players to be more strategical and more mindful of their position..
Ozymandias-7 a écrit :
Learning to identify perpetual checks is part of the game, why do you think this rule exists in professional chess tournaments? Just the other day I played someone, and during the endgame he was up a piece but I found a tactic that either forces him to take the draw or lose his advantage, he stubbornly didn't take the draw and I eventually queened and won the game.
Also, most important part is that it stops people from playing dead draw situations. Like, I'd be in a position where there's absolutely no way anyone can get and advantage (usually in a bishop and pawn ending) and the other player just starts spamming pre-moves to try and win with the clock. I'd say this situation is 10 times dumber than the rule you're complaining about.
This comment says it all.
skill issue
Mar 3, 2023
0
#177
Ozymandias-7 wrote:
Learning to identify perpetual checks is part of the game, why do you think this rule exists in professional chess tournaments? Just the other day I played someone, and during the endgame he was up a piece but I found a tactic that either forces him to take the draw or lose his advantage, he stubbornly didn't take the draw and I eventually queened and won the game.
Also, most important part is that it stops people from playing dead draw situations. Like, I'd be in a position where there's absolutely no way anyone can get and advantage (usually in a bishop and pawn ending) and the other player just starts spamming pre-moves to try and win with the clock. I'd say this situation is 10 times dumber than the rule you're complaining about.
The clock rule is just dumb.
That's because the dead position rule is dumb.
Apart from the fact that FIDE doesn't give any way of checking if a position is dead and nobody has managed to produce any algorithm to check, it's a catch 22.
If I draw MC, I can just wait till he moves and claim the position is dead.
If the arbiter points out that there are are series of legal moves leading to checkmate, I can just refer him to the rule (art. 5.2.2)
The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
and agree that there are such series, but insist that neither player can checkmate with any such series, because the position is dead and that immediately ends the game.
And art. 6.9
Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by thatplayer [sic]. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.
can never apply. You cannot lose a game on time.
At some time strictly prior to the expiration of the allotted time it will become impossible for the player having the move to complete a move (e.g. owing to the necessity of any piece to be moved exceeding the speed of light).
At that point neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves, so by art. 5.2.2 (above) the game is immediately ended and the result is a draw. The subsequent expiration of the allotted time is irrelevant.
DaveRochelson wrote:
Picture this: you're beating another player by 5, 10, 15 points. But if he can put you in some cheap check and toggle it back and forth three times (sometimes to stall and increase his time, sometimes to force a draw), that can end the game, and squeeze your points out of you? When I was a kid we used to call that "cheap" -- maybe technically legal, but not very sportsmanlike. It's a profoundly stupid rule and should be struck from the rule book.
Do you mind if a woman does it?
AMartianPotato skrev:
grimme_johnny wrote:
It's a stupid rule. If a player has to resort to such measures - he clearly has run out of options, and has a losing position.
The 'threefold repetition rule' should apply to the player who initiates the check, and repeats the same move three times. That player should then lose the game.
Except he doesn't have a losing position because the opponents king is undefended. The entire point of the game is to attack the other guys king while defending your own. It doesn't matter how much you have pointed at your opponents king, if you've left yours completely defenseless you don't deserve to win.
But he cannot win this way. He can only use gamemechanics to avoid a loss, and force a draw.
grimme_johnny wrote:
AMartianPotato skrev:
grimme_johnny wrote:
It's a stupid rule. If a player has to resort to such measures - he clearly has run out of options, and has a losing position.
The 'threefold repetition rule' should apply to the player who initiates the check, and repeats the same move three times. That player should then lose the game.
Except he doesn't have a losing position because the opponents king is undefended. The entire point of the game is to attack the other guys king while defending your own. It doesn't matter how much you have pointed at your opponents king, if you've left yours completely defenseless you don't deserve to win.
But he cannot win this way. He can only use gamemechanics to avoid a loss, and force a draw.
Yeah... that's why it's a draw. If you wanted to win you shouldn't have left your king vulnerable to perpetual check.
It's a good rule that ensures accurate play and no redundancy. It keeps the mind sharp.
But one repetition should be allowed because it can alternate the tempo in a way to ensure a winning position, especially during endgames.
Then again, it should be called twofold repetition, since they count in the original position, but that's not a repeat. It has frustrated me before ('but that's twice!')