In Martin)'s example, 1 Nd6 is a blunder, why reward it with a second chance?
and scott: Are you serious? 1. You claim draw before the position is repeated again. 2. Just remove the white bishop then, it's the concept we're talking about not the exact position.
Both players had the opportunity to avoid repetition. (Black, by anything other than 32 ...Re8, White by anything other than 33 Re1) That fact that they did not avoid this, implies a willingness to draw.
@Kingpatzer: He said it wasn't made for this purpose, not that this use wasn't considered
In Martin)'s example, 1 Nd6 is a blunder, why reward it with a second chance?
and scott: Are you serious? 1. You claim draw before the position is repeated again. 2. Just remove the white bishop then, it's the concept we're talking about not the exact position.
Both players had the opportunity to avoid repetition. (Black, by anything other than 32 ...Re8, White by anything other than 33 Re1) That fact that they did not avoid this, implies a willingness to draw.
Nonsense. Perhaps black didn't see that white would want to reply by offering to trade rooks, so now he's forced to move the rook to a worse square?
It implies no such thing as a willingness to draw, because they know that a single repetition does not create a draw.
Eseles I understand what he said. My point is that the origination of the rule isn't material to it's current inclusion in the rules. The rules committee doesn't care why it was originally created, they care how it impacts current play in conjunction with the rest of the content of the Handbook -- to include the prescribed time controls for FIDE events.
I agree it is wrong to say that the rule don't consider time management, I just don't think of it as the main reason of the rule and not a problem either.
Scott, you know I loe you dearly 
, but:
perhaps Black didn't see?
That's a blunder, he need to get punished. What if he didn't see a mate, or a piece hanging?
And at the moment they know a single repetition isn't a draw, but a way to play mind games, or manipulate the clock.
If the rule changes, they WOULD know.
They would know, and wouldn't play the rook back to e8. I don't think it becomes a better game because of that.
This repetition rule is about humanity, I belive. Pure logic says one repetition is enought to draw the game due to no progress made. Same logic says there is no need to declare check. If opponent doesn't move his king out of check he simply blunders the king and the game.
Not meaning to insult anyone, however ... could this discussion quite possibly belong in my thread on " More Silly Rules of Chess " ?
Not meaning to insult anyone, however ... could this discussion quite possibly belong in my thread on " More Silly Rules of Chess " ?
Woow, what a flag! :D
The repetition move obviously wasn't made for getting time increment, but I agree with Scottrf. Why is it a big deal if the rule can be used to gain time?
The rules committee meet regularly to review and revise the rules of chess, at which point they publish them as a unified whole. While the initial rule of draw by repetition predates clocks and certainly predates modern time controls with increment, the reality is that the current rules are published as a unified whole after careful deliberation of how the rules relate to each other and function in common practice.
As such, it is wrong to say that the repetion rules don't consider time management as part of their justification in the current FIDE publication of the rules.