Chess should abolish the draw by repetition

I find the same attitude in video game => Complain and clear a rules that player don't know play with.....

The draw by repeat it easily avoidable, specially when you are winning (or in better position), just it's your job to get ready your plan, as like get ready your open, middle and final game.

Everyone knows the rule. It's up to you to not let the opponent trap you into a draw. It's just part of the game.

This is a rule in the game. You just learned a lesson and have to watch if this is possible.

Its same when you are down and you can get a draw, you will take it.

@TheLyinKing said in #39:
> Ackshually...

Chess is an ever changing stage and when there is a deja vu it goes 'Hey! No going back or round in circles, you got a play to play. Play if you want to play, or stop'. It's kind of harsh, but crisp: There is exactly one warning: if you realize that a position has occurred before, then you can avoid a "threefold".

-Be aware that a twofold repetition is all it takes to fulfill a threefold occurrence of a position which allows for claiming a draw. Threefold repetition is kind of a misnomer.

Chess allows all sorts of detours, and even the same position twice. But if you lose track and a third occurrence is claimed, accept the draw as part of the integrity of a chess game meant to change.

It would be even sharper to say draw claimable on first reoccurrence of position. That would be really consequent. Because now, you can probe into one direction and go back, but, having completed that cycle, you cannot probe into another direction and go back again. Not very logical.

The road goes on forever and the party never ends.............................

I think the extra chance can act like a claim itself, that makes the opponent think carefully. The extra slack to make sure it was not accidental the first time.

debatable. possibly an admission that we don't play perfect chess?

Chess is encouraging you to move a piece back. When you see you mis-stepped, just going back is a fair candidate, you do not risk an immediate draw, because your opponent cannot claim a draw on the first repetition. But if you have to return (or just happen to return) to the same position for a second time (for a threefold, a position's third occurrence) then chess says either you or the position were not good enough to make something out of it and it can be claimed as a draw. It remains in the hands of both players, though. If they both decide they want to play on because the position is totally fruitful (and that can be a reason why they came back to it) then they may explore the position up to two more times. Only on 5th occurrence of a given position, a draw is mandatory and would be automatically registered by a machine or would have to be claimed by a dutiful arbiter.

Well I didn't link the game so it's hard to debate. Most ppl here think the opponent did a normal 3 fold, and that's just not it.

@TheLyinKing said in #48:
> Well I didn't link the game so it's hard to debate. Most ppl here think the opponent did a normal 3 fold, and that's just not it.

if you want it anonymous to be polite about not naming an opponent. you could just make a study of the sequence and strip the names... or copy paste here the PGN (just the moves not the header).. someone could make a browsable game of it. Since I did some rambling here, I might do it. to be consistent with it.

@TheLyinKing said in #48:
> Well I didn't link the game so it's hard to debate. Most ppl here think the opponent did a normal 3 fold, and that's just not it.
It's easy enough to find. It was a classical perpetual check, an absolutely honourable technique of defense.