Chess rules that should have not existed!

@23

You posted:

"I ran SF 15.1 (no NNUE) against itself from the initial position in question in Arena with 5 mins for all moves each (repeating)."

That is 1 game by one SF 15.1 entity piloted by a 860 rated human with 5 minutes for all moves.

All automatic. Not piloted by any human, 860 rated (whomever you might have had in mind) or otherwise. 

I don't draw any conclusion from the game, merely use it as an illustration that the assumption of messrs. @VerifiedChessYarshe and @saderfewpro_SHB that the position is drawn is questionable.

I posted results from 68 games by 17 entities piloted by ICCF (grand)masters with 5 days/move.

Why?

They do play perfect games.

I don't believe you. 

There are innumerable instances of similarly strong players (human and silicon) playing imperfectly in much simpler positions that can be checked by tablebases. It defies common sense to assume they play better as the positions get more complicated.

The 3-fold repetition rule is the major drawing mechanism.

I said your conjecture was interesting. I didn't say wrong. Feel free to elaborate.

"Proud to be indian!".

To start, i wanna say that its not meant for politics, for entertainment purposes only.

Many of 'veterans' has different type, could be a ww2 veteran, football veteran, etc... But welcome to chess.com! Is chess veterans! And almost all of thess 'chess veterans' surely knows what is Chaturanga, especially Indians. Well we are not talking about history, u surely know what is this forum's topic.

Though chess is not the best sport, these 'chess nationalists' just making it the best. Some sort of a "metaphor for human affairs". Can a chess board/piece really suffer? Well obviously not but u wouldnt put a remorse if someone purposely break ur chess board which any chess nationalism would do. And its not like chess is gonna be relevance on this 21st century world where wars and strategies will be much different than chess itself.

As i just said on top, chess isnt the best game, so please do not treat it like a tool of metaphor for human affairs.

And because i said "chess isnt the best game" there are a few rules i didnt like and my guts say it shouldnt have existed.

1. Offering draw

Now this may get alot of hate but i think offering a draw is dumb. Why? Obviously the creator of chess made the objective on "checkmate the opponent's king". Though offering a draw on high levels are used when the position is a dead draw. Lets see the difference here from other sports! Football basically has drawish rules but u cant offer a draw in the middle of the match. Play till end i mean. So why its called war and strategy sport? Sport is competing and u need to compete to win! Magnus arent playing for a draw, but if its forced he still gonna play untill there is nothing left. What kind of sport is this if u can split prizes? Maybe it will sounded too greedy but hey its competing not team match! And why football i still called an sport that is 1v1? For example Argentina's football team is an. I dont think i ever see a player the team ever keeps the UCL trophy at their house, only the team's trophy cabinet is used.

2nd why i think it shouldnt exists, well think about it. Ur leader commanded you to attack. (Chess is a strategy and war board game). Suddenly he offers a draw during mid fight. U would not be happy as ur determinded to sacrifice urself to win something for your contry! However the defending team would get more benefits as they got peace and stopped being tortured. So who has the best feelings? Obviously the defending country as they are determinded to defend their country with their lives, and if successful it would be a honour to them. Maybe if ur leader think twice that his enemy has the similar strenght and thus is a dead draw he should have done that defensively. You have to gone to rough terrains and accept any commands from ur leader while the defending country is simple: Do whatever it takes to defend the country. And if drew they successfuly completed their plans and the survivours are happy and high morale!

So yeah. There is still more!

2. Stalemate (With exceptions) 

Many of you experienced this now, the memest ones are this:

Now well lets first define stalemate. What is stalemate?

In wars today like Russo-Ukraine with Russians cant make any progress nor the Ukrainians. Here is an example of that kind of stalemate which i rather call "No progress draw".

Chess, however stalemate is defined is when ur opponent has no legal move but not in check is called Stalemate.

Now i think is dunb because if ur trapped u have no air, why u want to survive? If i am the chess creator then the person who got stalemated will lose as he techniquelly doesnt have legal moves and of course u need to make new plans in a war. Stalemate like the fact that the king didnt get checked but have no legal moves is so dumb. Xiangqi doesnt make that a draw, that kind of stalemate in chess, will be a win for the person who staged the stalemate.

Thats all i have to say.

This forum does not meant to hate chess, but to prove that chess isnt the same as 21st century war tools and strategies, its not that greatest and not always a strategy game.

Leave ur opinions!

Sorry, but if u didnt understand, i never said that "dead position" should be a real draw, i never said it. So the game will be solved by 3R, 50 move rule ,....

How much that u just take my words and said that it is a draw ? So sorry, 3R still exists

Sorry - made even less sense of that one. (Did you notice that the post you quoted was a response to @tygxc?)