Some explain to me the logic of 3x repetition being a draw.

I was playing a very intense game and my competitor had like 20 seconds left and was panic moving putting me in and out of check. I would have won regardless of time. Why is that a draw? I was fine, he was the one out of moves. I can't explain how frustrated that is making me...

Imagine you have 20 minutes left and your opponent 30 minutes in the same position. If the 3 times repetition rule didn't exist, your opponent will repeat the same move again and again, until you've no time left. That would be stressful and very boring for everyone I think...

It's to stop the same move from being made over and over so that the game doesn't go on without end. Why specifically three times for the draw, I don't know, I assume that the FIDE just decided that threefold is enough.

So that you can't just move back and forth and refuse to agree a draw out of spite. Threefold repetition rule exists (at least in part) to prevent sour people wasting innocent peoples' time.

Presumably you're talking about this game, considering your opponent can take your rook in the final position you're quite lucky to have the draw considering you'd be no better in the resulting position. The logic behind a draw by repetition is in order to win you have to be able to show you're making progress, by letting a position repeat 3 times you've shown an inability to make any progress and hence your opponent deserves a draw

Okay but this just gives the advantage to the person who's just about to lose that has an opportunity to put you in a sticky situation. Seems like the downsides and the upsides are equal. Why not just make the person that repeats the move 3 times first surrender if its a problem, they're the ones giving up or trying to swindle the game.

www.365chess.com/search_result.php?wlname=kishnev&wname=&open=&blname=schlosser&bname=&eco=&nocolor=on&yeari=&yeare=&sply=1&ply=&res=&submit_search=1#
Kishnev, Sergey - Schlosser, Philipp Budapest 1991, repeated the same position four times. The theory was that they both needed a win to make a GM norm and waited for the other to break the repetition by making an inferior move. (Chess Life January 2017, page 18)

@micahderpp If you want to stop perpetual checks, then don't make repeating moves that allow for threefold repetition

On the bright side this convo is going to ensure that I remember that rule hahah.

@Jackurokawa - This rule also covers, on what used to be called "perpetual check". You could get a draw out of what was a lost game, due to a material disadvantage, by achieving a position where you can check your opponent without them being able to stop it. Its a really nifty way to save a lost game! Much to the chagrin of your opponent. :]
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_check