Chess should abolish the draw by repetition

@Hagredion said in #10:
> Chess should definitely abolish the draw by repetition. I'm looking forward to playing 300 moves in dead drawn positions.

You'd only get 300 moves by either moving pawns, or capturing pieces. But you can't repeat positions if you do that.

3-fold repetition is not what prevents long games in dead drawn positions. The 50-move rule will.

@Abigail-III said in #31:
> You'd only get 300 moves by either moving pawns, or capturing pieces. But you can't repeat positions if you do that.
>
> 3-fold repetition is not what prevents long games in dead drawn positions. The 50-move rule will.

One can repeat the position 49 times then push a pawn then repeat the position 49 times again then push the pawn again and so on.

An example would be white has a pawn on a2 and kings are on a1 and a3. Without the repetition rule the game could go on almost forever while with the repetition rule it will be over quickly. The repetition rule does prevent long games in dead drawn positions.

@jose1122 said in #28:
> There is a more problematic rule to me, the win by time with insufficient material, when the opponent have material to make a collaborative checkmate... In the majority of the cases, this rule is unfair and disrespectful, like if someone would bring a centralized King to the corner on purpose... This is the same of calling this person an idiot..

See it not as disrespect to our capacity but as respect to our fallibilty.

@TheLyinKing
If we are winning but don't win at best it's a draw.
Your opponent didn't press a random "bunch of buttons" but played for a 3-fold.
If your opponent can force a 3-fold, the position is not lost. If your opponent can offer you the chance to fall for a 3-fold it is like saying "if you don't know how to play this for a win, let's just draw".
In this case it is you who went for mindless repetition, meeting mindful repetition by the underdog. They were marking their territory with checks and you did not show them they can't hold their ground. Good draw.

Well technically it wasn't a 3 fold. They just kept putting me in check w their queen about 10 times before the game ended as a draw.

Wow such skill. Such logic. This is a flaw in chess.

How can you look this game and blame the rules instead of using it as a learning opportunity?

You had a checkmate possibility having two queens which you missed. You didn't figure out how to prevent the series of checks from the opponent. Any good player in this position would easily do that.

You played better in the early stage to gain an extra queen but you got outplayed in the end. The rules are just fine. Draw is a fair result.

@TheLyinKing said in #35:
> Well technically it wasn't a 3 fold. They just kept putting me in check w their queen about 10 times before the game ended as a draw.
>
> Wow such skill. Such logic. This is a flaw in chess.

No, this is a flaw in your understanding of chess. If you become a better player, you'll see how silly your complains are.

@TheLyinKing said in #35:
>
@TheLyinKing said in #35:
> Well technically it wasn't a 3 fold. They just kept putting me in check w their queen about 10 times before the game ended as a draw.
>
> Wow such skill. Such logic. This is a flaw in chess.

Technically it was a threefold.

Ackshually...

Hmm! Interesting you describe your opponent as lucky, it takes a lot of skill to avoid losing when the other player has a winning position. From a personal point of view I like to win, especially if I win a hard fought game, I’m ok with losing in the same scenario, however, when getting a draw from what should be a hopeless position is a pretty good feeling. The rules are there, play to them and enjoy.