Yes, what's wrong with proposing a rule change based on my experiences?
That it doesn't make any sense?
This is your last draw:
https://www.chess.com/game/live/123054679284?username=md1806&move=60
You were up a pawn, but your position was actually slightly worse, because your bad king position. Your opponent gave perpetual check thinking it was a good result for him. Now you propose that you should have lost the game after that perp? Seriously? In which world would that make any sense? In which world would that fix any problem?
Yes, it would be hypocritical of me not to apply my own rule to myself. I should've lost 8 points.
"In which world would that make any sense? In which world would that fix any problem?"
Did you read my original post? It would solve the problem of time-wasting draws, and it would incentivize playing to win rather than playing to suck out of a tied/advantageous position.
Your own game is a counterexample to both points. That game was not a time-wasting draw, it was a hard fought one. And the guy who gave perpetual check (your opponent) would be incentivized to do so even more, as he would have won.
You're proposing a fairly major rule change. You need to justify the need for it by identifying a problem, and you need to show how your change is a solution. Thus far you've done neither.
1. What would prove to you that draws are a problem?
2. Nobody is applying a "moral standard;" where did I mention morality?
3. Your logic here doesn't make sense. People who sacrifice material and don't gain from it are already trying to play for a draw instead of a loss (if the sacrifice works, they end up either winning or regaining the sacrificed material). Are repetition draws rare? Do you have data to back up that assertion?
1. I would say that they need to occur an unacceptably large proportion of the time. Your mileage will vary on what is deemed acceptable, but at the level you're talking about the vast majority of games are decisive. Looking at our stats both you and I, for example, who are in the range you're talking about, draw significantly less than 10% of the time in blitz (7% for you, just less than 6% for me). I consider that draw rate entirely acceptable. Regarding draws by repetition specifically, my rate is just shy of 2.5%. Yours is a little higher, at 5%, but that's still only one such draw every 20 games. Assuming we are representative I see absolutely no need to change the rules here.
2) you didn't mention it by name, but that's what you're doing. Your position is that the player up material should lose in a draw by repetition because they should be pushing harder for a win - which is to say, you're arguing that they should be punished because they haven't behaved correctly. That's a moral standard. It just happens to be an arbitrary one.
3) 'People who sacrifice material and don't gain from it are already trying to play for a draw instead of a loss' - that's precisely my point. Your rule (potentially) rewards these people with a win, and therefore acts against its intended purpose. See 1) for the answer to your question about data.
Yes, what's wrong with proposing a rule change based on my experiences?
That it doesn't make any sense?
This is your last draw:
https://www.chess.com/game/live/123054679284?username=md1806&move=60
You were up a pawn, but your position was actually slightly worse, because your bad king position. Your opponent gave perpetual check thinking it was a good result for him. Now you propose that you should have lost the game after that perp? Seriously? In which world would that make any sense? In which world would that fix any problem?
Yes, it would be hypocritical of me not to apply my own rule to myself. I should've lost 8 points.
"In which world would that make any sense? In which world would that fix any problem?"
Did you read my original post? It would solve the problem of time-wasting draws, and it would incentivize playing to win rather than playing to suck out of a tied/advantageous position.
Your own game is a counterexample to both points. That game was not a time-wasting draw, it was a hard fought one. And the guy who gave perpetual check (your opponent) would be incentivized to do so even more, as he would have won.
Bold of you to assume how I feel about my own chess games. Every game I play that ends in a draw is a waste of time. The ones that do so when I'm down material are less so, but still. If this site actually allowed you to regularly play against people rated hundreds of points above you, like others do (cough one that starts with Li), I would resign games rather than play move draws. But I'm stuck challenging only people within a narrow band, so rating points are precious.
There are still several key problems with your idea, of which the most pertinent are:
1) you haven't proven that draws are a problem, beyond the fact that you yourself regard them as a waste of time. A subsidiary problem here is that you haven't proven that draws by repetition in particular are a problem at the level you're talking about.
2) you haven't addressed the point that being up or down material doesn't correlate reliably with whether your position was worse, better, or equal. You are trying to apply a moral standard to the player who is up material, on the basis that they 'should' have pressed harder to win, ignoring the fact that the player who is up material might never have had an advantage on the board, and indeed might be doing very well to escape with a draw.
3) you haven't addressed the problem that your solution creates, namely that there would be a serious incentive to play for a draw by repetition if you can sacrifice material to do so. Given that draws by repetition are pretty rare to begin with, I think there's a reasonable chance you might actually make them more common if this rule change was instigated.
You're proposing a fairly major rule change. You need to justify the need for it by identifying a problem, and you need to show how your change is a solution. Thus far you've done neither.
1. What would prove to you that draws are a problem?
2. Nobody is applying a "moral standard;" where did I mention morality?
3. Your logic here doesn't make sense. People who sacrifice material and don't gain from it are already trying to play for a draw instead of a loss (if the sacrifice works, they end up either winning or regaining the sacrificed material). Are repetition draws rare? Do you have data to back up that assertion?