I hate the threefold repetition rule

FIDE is not dominant in the world of composition but it is most certainly dominant in the world of game chess. Your opinion about that means nothing. It's a point of reality not preference. The WFCC orgnizationally split off FIDE some decades ago but they cooperate well together. Composers are free to define the rules for their chess puzzles any way they like but they will commonly avoid overlaps with existing game types. A large body of compositions however is still orthodox. To retain the connections with the world of game chess they decided to bandwagon on the FIDE-rules - with necessary modifications of their own. That's the only reason why you will find great compositions from the composition-domain posted on chess.com. The puzzle makers and the solvers speak the same language.

Is your opinion worth anything? less than mine, I should have thought.

You just carry on thinking it Optimissed. The rest of us can safely ignore you.

Why don't you then?

I can recognise the personality types by the writing style. You're equally full of yourselves and there's no good reason for it. It isn't even about orthodoxy versus unorthodoxy so much as you wish to establish your authority.

At least the other one, Arisktotle, is the more consistent and will accept a good point if he recognises it. Your self-esteem must be lower.

You're also dishonest, since you will always deny making mistakes/getting caught out in your attempts to deceive others. Arisktotle doesn't attempt to deceive others but you certainly do, which makes your opinion regarding pretty much anything more or less worthless.

It would be possible to carry on a meaningful conversation with Arisktotle but not so with you, because your attempts to get one over on everyone who doesn't automatically agree with you or defer to you shows your character for what it is. Much of the time thinly veiled in attempted sarcasm.

If you don’t want that to happen then just don’t let yourself be checked 3 times. There’s ways to avoid checks. The question is ridiculous because if the rule wasn’t there then the game would go on for ever and the players would eventually run out of time. But who wants to wait until you run out of time and possibly lose? The rule is there so that you don’t lose time and run out. Because isn’t a draw better than losing?

I think what the OP is suggesting is to make repetition a win or a loss for the player perpetually checking, which would be absurd.

No it is not ridiculous - the only thing that would be meaningful, is if the player who first reaches 3 repetitions, loses the game. Current form is ridiculous - when player clearly has a losing position, and has to resort to this kind of laming, that player should lose. It almost feels like you're being trolled when people resorts to this.

Right, so a player who finds the resource to make legal moves such as perpetual check to prevent themselves from being checkmated, should lose for making legal moves? So I guess if my opponent has a massive pawn storm rolling down the board on one side I shouldn't be able to castle the other way, as it would be trolling to let his pawns come that far, and then just leap away to the other side saying "ha ha can't get me!"

En passant is ridiculous. Moving a piece and then being able to take a piece not on that square is trolling and a scam.

Pawns capturing differently from how they move is absurd. If that's the case than a queen should capture like a knight and vice versa. Rooks should capture like bishops and vice versa, and of course any piece reaching the back rank must be demoted to a pawn, but this will not count as a pawn move for the purposes of the 50 move rule.

there are no stupid rules...only stupid people.

This would effectively make it a draw anyway because you can force an acceptance of a draw offer by threatening perpetual check.

Let's make stalemate a "half draw"!!! The person stalemating gets 1 point and the stalemate person gets half a point LOL!!

I say that if you put your opponent in stalemate, you lose as punishment for your sloppy play.

Yes, and resigning should get you 1/7 of a point and your opponent 6/7.

Similar to what I was saying . If there are 2 players (a) and (b) and (a) is down material and went for a threefold repetition against (b) then (a) gets 1/2 or 5/10 of a point and (b) gets 9/10 of a point .

The en passant rule was created to balance another "ridiculous" rule - which is the two step pawn advance The latter was added to facilitate quick development from a starting position with a large open space. Not to bypass a square where it would be captured had it played its standard single square advance. What is illogical under that argument is that only a pawn is permitted to execute the en passant capture. Why not a bishop, or a knight?

Btw, there are many other interesting options to change the en passant rule. For instance: "the e.p. capture can be delayed as long as neither side has played another pawn move on the board" Interesting for checkmate problems, endgame studies and retrograde problems! Ultimately, many rules are maintained or changed because it's interesting, e.g. stalemate.

Talk about ridiculous, that is ridiculous. You can do a lot with scoring end states without making the game system rules inconsistent. But that doesn't make it rational on a conceptual level.

Giving dead positions 0 points comes from your psyche to punish people (rule makers and players) for manifesting some weird device nobody ever asked your permission for and you deem completely unnecessary. But obviously you do not understand the dead position rule. For instance, a position is dead when the only move you can play, would stalemate the opponent. Why sentence both players to death for that event?

Better 1/2.5e. Given that it's an irrational concept, it should be an irrational score.