Greetings and salutations,
-=> Quoting Ken Blake to Jason Mac Innes <=-
 KB> Are you talking about the rule that states that a triple repetition of
 KB> the  position is a draw?
 KB> If so, it's not "popular again" and it's not optional. It's simply a
 KB> rule  of the game. Your saying that you won't abide by it is like
 KB> saying that you  won't consider that you've lost even if you've been
 KB> checkmated. 
     I'm afraid you need a history lesson on chess. But I'm not the one to
give it to you. There are many good books, however, and I encourage you to
look them up. You'll find its evolution quite fascinating. :)
 KB> You find find someone who's willing to play with your own personal set
 KB> of  rules, but most people, including me, would not accept anything but
 KB> the  standard rules.
     That's amusing. :)  That's not my own personal set of rules. The
three-time rep of position rule is rarely used outside of tournaments. Which
this isn't. That the conference's FAQ suggests using it is also interesting.
There are many rules in chess, for example the touch rule and 50-move rule,
which are again tournament rules and have nothing to do with the way the game
is actually played. Tournament rules are not the rules of chess. They exist
for a reason, both in the case of the touch rule and in the case of the
three-time rep rule. If you think about them long enough, you'll see why they
were created.
     Many chess primers will not even mention the touch rule, three
rep rule or even the 50-move rule at all. So from your view point I guess all
those people are playing wrong, so you definitely want to be cautious of
them and not to play with them. Book examples: My Reinfeld that I picked
up in the 70s doesn't list any of the aforementioned rules, my Horowitz
mentions them as only official tournament rules, and a recent book
I purchased by Seirawan only mentions them in passing and suggests readers
not concern themselves with them. All of the books are still in print.
If you wish to complain to their publishers about teaching chess wrong,
then I'll gladly supply you with their addresses.
     Actually, that brings to mind the stalemate, to which there was a big
push to have it abolished a few decades back. (To return it from a "draw"
to its original "win" status.) You might also find that interesting to
look in to.
     One last thing: the rules of chess have never been as standard as you
believe them to be. Regardless of whether you believe FIDE's rules to
be carved in stone (your three time rep move is officially listed). The game
evolved irratically, became twisted and demented, and eventually mutated into
what we perceive chess to be. I believe, for example, it took 3 centuries
before "passar battaglia" was actually superseded by "en passant".
     You're welcome to respond, but I'd prefer if you read about it first.
Otherwise I suspect you'll just reiterate what you said, and that won't
be helpful to either of us.
     [On re-reading my message I realized it may sound insulting to you.
But that is certainly not the case. My intention was merely to
substantiate my early message which you stated was incorrect.]
     Regards,
Jason Mac Innes
... Do you feel more comfortable labelling me as insane?
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------