I hate the threefold repetition rule

Too bad you didn't take the time to find the way to avoid the checks.

You had more than two minutes left to figure out an alternative to the repetition.

Were you afraid he was going to mate you?

When my father taught me to play, his rule was that if a player makes the same move from the same position three times his opponent may claim a draw.  I don't know if that was also FIDE's definition of repetition of moves at the time, but at any rate FIDE changed it to a repetition of position. This  put a much more stringent requirement of accuracy on players (I wonder if FIDE actually thought about the consequences when they made the change).

I have quite often drawn by repetition practicing the knights in KNNKP against the Nalimov EGTB. Typically I have reached what I'll call a "holding position" where the opposing king is  well controlled and I have to decide in which direction to drive the king. There may be a couple of possible continuations in either direction. I then set out in one direction and realise it's not going to work, but I can claw the king back to the holding position. If I then set out in the opposite direction and the same happens I'm gone, because it's a draw by repetition if I return to the holding position. My own fault of course, but under the rule I was taught I could have continued and if necessary  tried out each of the remaining options (even twice each).

I think I prefer the rule I was taught, because in the situation I describe White is still winning and even though he's made two mistakes would probably carry on to win. There's no rule that enforces a draw in the general run of positions should the side with the advantage make more than one mistake. The original rule was no doubt intended to prevent useless play in which play is just cycling and no progress is happening, not to place stringent accuracy requirements on players. 

The above game would have been terminated on White's next move anyway under the rule I was taught.

Nothing to stop him checking you anyway if it were removed. In some positions that could go on forever.

@notmtwain: Oh for sure, I made a stupid error and am mad about it. No denying that. But what does this rule accomplish? I agree that, as @MARattigan pointed out, the original intention was to put a stop to an endless cycle of "useless play," but in practice it provides an out for a player to save face in a game that is otherwise lost.

But it's not lost. If you can repeat the position 3 times this means only 2 things:

1. You have made a stupid error as you say to allow this to happen or...

2. The 'losing' player will weaken their position and lose if they deviate from repeating (which of course they therefore won't do). 

You talk of beating another player by 5, 10 points etc but this is the wrong way to think of it. The points are a general guide to the material on the board, nothing more. The position on the board is the only relevant factor, including the possibility of a 3fold repetition or a stalemate. In such cases the material count is irrelevant. 

Obviously, MARattigan and Strangemover are 100% correct.

In addition:

• GMs often repeat moves in equal positions. It's a neat way to draw while leaving an opening for the opponent to find an alternative continuation - which he sometimes does.
• Players often sacrifice their way into a repetition. It's sort of funny to find fault with them drawing from 10 points behind while they were on equal terms before commencing their combination..

Problemists are pretty happy with the current 3R rule as it permits them some scope to play with the reps in, especially, retrograde problems. That would be much harder if an extra repeat were required as suggested by MARattigan. Problemists would be very happy when the first rep would draw straight away!

It is possible to get rid of repetitions alltogether by disallowing them, like in Go. An exception may or may not be made when your only legal move is a repeat. In all other cases you lose when you repeat or it is simply an illegal move. Not that I think it is fair or desirable. Escaping from repetitions and perpetuals is one of the fun parts of playing chess under the current laws.

The ruleis a way to save the game. Why shouldn't it be a draw? What other result would be fair? Just avoid getting checked over and over. This is like the people who say stalemate should be a win, but this is worse because there is no logic to support. In fact, one could argue 3 fold should be a win for the checker because the opponent can't get out of it!

The main idea is to allow the losing side to escape defeat in a losing position.

In this real game I was forced to find a perpetual, bailing out on a lost position after White missed out on an easy win.

It is horrible, utterly horrible...and fascinating

Right. That's dumb.

Thanks for your insightful post. Yes, of course the rule are what they are. But it's a stupid rule.

It's not the rule that allows the losing side to escape defeat. The fact is, in eric0022's example, he has escaped defeat, rule or no rule. In the position he showed, that was obviously not dumb. The rule only allows one player to call a halt to the game before one of the players dies.

Learning to identify perpetual checks is part of the game, why do you think this rule exists in professional chess tournaments? Just the other day I played someone, and during the endgame he was up a piece but I found a tactic that either forces him to take the draw or lose his advantage, he stubbornly didn't take the draw and I eventually queened and won the game. 

Also, most important part is that it stops people from playing dead draw situations. Like, I'd be in a position where there's absolutely no way anyone can get and advantage (usually in a bishop and pawn ending) and the other player just starts spamming pre-moves to try and win with the clock. I'd say this situation is 10 times dumber than the rule you're complaining about.

OP prefers never ending games with infinite repetitions.

What other result would it be? An infinite game would by definition be a draw. Each move you are supposed to try to make the best moves, so what's the difference if it's repeated. One can argue that the one who's initiating the repetition should win as he has gotten his opponent into a loop that he can't get out of on his own. Wait a second, how do we determine who is doing the repetition. In your diagram, black is making the same dumb king move over and over also!

It's a very wise rule. Not because it is a draw because everyone can see it is a draw. It is wise because it terminates the game and permits the players to go home. And to have a good night sleep. And to wake up refreshed. And to have another fun game tomorrow. That's why.

Agreed, I just don't see what the alternative would even be?