Abusing Draw by Repetition - Does the Rule Need to be Reworked?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Chess is full of pitfalls. Now you know a new one. Use it against your opponents to implicitly offer a draw. Sometimes they'll accept. Sometimes they'll accept even if the alternative is a winning position for them.

N                 O

The rules must never change again. It's as perfect as it can be

This is my answer to all forums of this kind

But it's always good to elaborate a bit.

FIDE uses three repetitions:

https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf

Five repetitions may have been the standard at some point in the nineteenth century or before. Even as late as the Capablanca — Lasker World Championship, I vaguely recall seeing a third repetition not ending the game.

If wikipedia is correct, some early match and tournament rules required a six-fold repetition before a draw claim, but three-fold apparently became standard in the late 1800s.

The Capa-Lasker game Ziryab mentions is probably the 5th game. Here a three-fold repetition occurred, but neither player claimed it as a draw.

Curiously, starting in 2014,  FIDE rules state that a five-fold repetition creates an automatic draw (but a draw can still be claimed at three).

Over the board I have saved many positions when opponents seeking increment accidentally repeat the same position 1 time too much and I can claim a draw. I saved so many points in rapid and blitz like that

I think you have a very poor attitude. You didn't post the png and your description of the game is misleading. It sounds like your queen was possibly trapped or you're skewered or overloaded at the very least. Not the dominating position as you've imagined it to be. It's part of the game to try to earn half a point when you're in a poor position. You seem inexperienced in chess and your boasts of being a law graduate come off as haughty and backdoorbraggy. It's not actually all that common for a repetition of moves to occur so it could be your arrogance/stubbornness is part of your problem. Play more games. I'm fairly sure when you benefit from the rule you'll change your tune quite quickly.

Triple repetition of position is a claimed  draw, five-fold is an automatic one for FIDE.

edit: guess I should have read all the replies first since that was already clarified.

FIDE was founded in 1924. What were the rules in 1921? 

It seems that I’ve researched this, but I don’t know the answer off the top of my head.

Ambiguity regarding the rules during the 1921 World Championship are expressed here:

http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2021/03/capablanca-lasker-game-5-continued.html

To wit:

The triple occurrence of position would be a draw by today's rules. Linder and Linder state, "Black could have claimed a draw". I am not certain that he could. What was the rule in 1921? You will not find the rule in the FIDE Handbook. FIDE was created three years later. 

The rules for the London International Tournament of 1883 specified three-fold repetition of moves, and after the event, it was suggested to modify this to three-fold repetition of position (the modern rule). However, the Fifth American Chess Congress (1889) mentioned six-fold repetition, and William Steinitz's is not explicit about a draw by repetition in The Modern Chess Instructor, published that year. He mentions both perpetual check and repetition of moves.

Edward Winter, "Repetition of Position or Moves in Chess", Chess Notes (updated 30 July 2020) offers some of the critical detail concerning development of the rule, including references to rules governing other World Championship Matches that reference the German Handbuch. The rules for the match in Havana do not reference the Handbuch, nor any other set of general rules.

     The rule is fine as is. It's an easier choice to launch a speculative attack if you might be able to get a perpetual check even if you can't checkmate.

     And all this about "I'm winning by 5 or 10 points" is hogwash. There is no winning on points in chess--you can checkmate your opponent or you can't, that's it.

You are right that chess.com is rewarding bad chess etiquette with this rule, allowing the losing side to force a draw. In addition, it really takes the fun out of the game

This is one rule that needs to change in chess. It really leads to unsportsmanlike play and takes the fun out of the game

If you ended up in a position where your opponent can endlessly check you or repeat moves, you weren't winning. This take on things is worse than the "stalemate should be a win" claims.

big skill issue