The only kind of sensible way to abolish draws by repetition would be to make repetition illegal (and if your only otherwise legal moves would be repetitions, you lose). This would change the nature of the game too much for chess enthusiasts to accept, but at least it doesn't produce infinite games and drops drastically the draw rate while still requiring skill.
Removing draws by repetitions while allowing repetitions, leading to potentially infinite games, is absurd.
@Hagredion said in #10:
> Chess should definitely abolish the draw by repetition. I'm looking forward to playing 300 moves in dead drawn positions.
And no one wants that to happen.
It is so funny when players think you should bow to their "superior position" and that the game is already finished.
Nothing about being superior here. Just think it's a little foolish that someone so down in the game could do something as elemtary as the same move over and over again to avoid losing. It's a piss poor way to win and lose :)
And for those of you complaining about endless games...that's kinda my point. If you, the losing player, have to resort to mindless repetition, show some respect for the game and resign.
Another option is to force resignation. If an underdog uses repetition to draw, They are forced to resign.
@TheLyinKing said in #14:
> Nothing about being superior here. Just think it's a little foolish that someone so down in the game could do something as elemtary as the same move over and over again to avoid losing. It's a piss poor way to win and lose :)
You aren't going to be happy when you find out about the 40 move rule, or stalemate.
@TheLyinKing said in #1:
> If you look at my last game you can see why I'm upset. Clearly had the winning hand but the opponent (albeit luckily) was able to find a pattern that would force a draw.
>
> It reminds me of the first time I played Mortal Kombat. I didn't know wtf I was doing, so I just pressed a bunch of buttons hoping it would land a kick.
>
> This is a great analogy for the underdog draw by repetition, a strategy that is senseless, without logic, and must be abolished by chess players around the world, should we wish to maintain integrity within the game itself.
This came up recently in a form
well serious note first
Lichess players fide rules so go complain to them and also
The reason for the repetition rule is simple:
If I had a perpetual or there was a pawn wall would you play with me for the rest of time?
In best play, 1 fold repetition implies perpetual cycling.
It is to give a value to to cycling as a core mobility rule possibly outcome in the practical context of human games, where we don't have the energy and curiosity to actually perpetuate that motion. If such an opportunity is zugwang best for one side, then it is up to that side to seek that outcome, for me integral part of the chess cognition pleasure and challenge.
now 3, 4,5 this is up to administrative rule set for which i don't care much...
But it is a property of a given position with the other more position determined parts of the ruleset. at least the core mobility rules, mates and stalemate included.
I like to view those as perpetual motion continuations of the position.... in the more abstract game of chess that can be fully be determined by the current position complete information, even in its termination rules.
but we don't play perfect chess do we.. so we have to cut the threads somewhere.
Also, rigorously speaking the position is only winning if the opponent does not use the perpetual motion mobility possibility that the position offers. So you might have been assuming that you were winning if not using that mobile possibility.
Even without proving by exhausting all combinations (turn by turn) in the following: if a mate exists only by an opponent queen with many angles of possible checks stopped checking, and did some defensive move or other non perpetuating move, then that mate is not the best outcome for both players, it is not really a full chess winning position only a possible mate, depending on opponent next choices. one sided plans of winning don,t make a winning position.
It might be good toward improving own play, to start thinking in the opponent plan shoes.. not easy, the opponent is always one ply ahead if of equal strength (whatever that means). And we are often rooting for ourselves in our imagination... I have a hard time myself being as creative in my scheming about opponent replies, as about my own candidates.
> Nothing about being superior here. Just think it's a little foolish that someone so down in the game could do something as elemtary as the same move over and over again to avoid losing.
it's a lot more foolish to do this when you have the superior position, no?
