@Akbar2thegreat said in #10:
> Now you are wrong!
Deadban was trying to help the OP by giving a simple rule that applies in many cases.
I agree with that rule, as it matches my chess understanding that many 3-fold repetitions fall under the category of consecutive moves, like this one.
Your "improved" rule is just not helpful, as it doesn't cover every scenario out of the given rule.
If I wanted I could find a sequence to make -x and -3x work. Or any other random property.
> Anything to say? Any excuse left?
No offense, I just think you're arguing about something unnecessary.
Hopefully we can get feedback from @newpo about whether the answers helped them or not. My guess is what had to be said has already been said :-)
> Now you are wrong!
Deadban was trying to help the OP by giving a simple rule that applies in many cases.
I agree with that rule, as it matches my chess understanding that many 3-fold repetitions fall under the category of consecutive moves, like this one.
Your "improved" rule is just not helpful, as it doesn't cover every scenario out of the given rule.
If I wanted I could find a sequence to make -x and -3x work. Or any other random property.
> Anything to say? Any excuse left?
No offense, I just think you're arguing about something unnecessary.
Hopefully we can get feedback from @newpo about whether the answers helped them or not. My guess is what had to be said has already been said :-)