playing chess

Playing Chess

Participate and you will gain!
Crazy name, real matters
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
punkusmartyrus 26 ( +1 | -1 )
3-fold Rep. anytime? I've heard somewhere that the 3-fold repetition rule can be claimed if the same position occurs anytime during the game, for example on move 7, 13, and then on move 42, rather than just strictly consecutively as in move order 7,8,9 or 22,23,24.

Is this true?
ionadowman 68 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes... ...provided that not only the pieces and pawns occupy the same squares each time, it is the same player to move each time, and provided precisely the same moves are available to both sides each time.
E.g. in the 7, 13 and 42 moves example, suppose it is White to play each time, but Black's King still has castling rights at move 7 and 13, but no longer has castling rights at move 42. Even if at moves 7 and 13 Black is not in a position immediately to castle in response to White's move, the position is held to be different at move 42 on account of this very slight change of nature. The same holds for whether or not the mover has and/or has not a "en passant" move available.
misato 48 ( +1 | -1 )
Precise explanation I just want to add that "the pieces and pawns occupy the same squares each time" doesn't mean that it have to be the same physical objects. You can change the squares of two (same-coloured) rooks or knights, and it's still the same position on the board counting towards the threefold-repetition rule.

GK reflects this rule perfectly, some time ago I tested it in an unrated game, we changed places of Ra1 and Rh1, and it worked. (It doesn't work in GK-blitz, though.)
ionadowman 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Good point, misato - I had forgotten about that. It had been mentioned before, too, when the topic came up some time ago. I should have remembered.
ccmcacollister 96 ( +1 | -1 )
Indeed ! Yes, as misato says ... that very point has been tested in unrated play ... that the Knights or Rooks could interchange places with the other piece of their own type and be considered an "identical"/"same" position insofar as 3-Time-Rep draws ...(which is just as the matter Should be, in FIDE rules. So the GK system Is in step with the FIDE rule, completely it seems. Cheers for Webmaster once again!)
Of course, hearing from misato , you already know it works that way. I'm really just hear to say, "Thanks misato!" for filling me in on the fact it does Not work in blitz, still. And as far as I know, blitz will still not even let you make a 3 time rep of position ... by refusing to allow you to move the piece to a square that would make it so! Still so, yes? Regards, Craig
levellerlevvie 67 ( +1 | -1 )
Believe it or not ... but I learned something!!! I never knew the 3 fold Repetition rule also counted when the moves were not played right after each other. Does it occur often that the same board occurs on eg move 7, 13 and 40 and a draw is claimed. Has anyone encountered this in a real game on gameknot or in real chess

(PS: Since I didn't even know this it's clear that I didn't know about the switching of rooks or knights and still having the same board counting for a 3-fold repetition)

Amazing stuff .. after playing chess for like 10 years :-) I wonder if some good players are unaware of this rule!
ccmcacollister 154 ( +1 | -1 )
levellerlevvie I'd venture to say that probably Never has a 3 time Rep occurred involving moves 7, 13 and 40! (What a strange game that would be!) But yes, draws have occurred in GM play for instance, that were not consecutive. Fischer once escaped from a terrible position in that way, being alert enough to see and claim it when it came up non-consecutively. But I cannot tell you what opponent that was, perhaps someone else can>?
Personally, I have encountered the possibility, but only on the side that had to avoid it ... not as a draw claim myself. And did avoid it, so cannot say I've really been in one all the way.
I would speculate that these non-consecutives can more often be found in the ending such as K+P or perhaps single piece endings with pawns, but have also seen them come up in computer games that are fairly cramped positions with not much piece play ... then have seen a computer decide to simply begin repeating some Rook maneavuer that "betters" its position slightly then takes least away, for instance. Most often such Were consecutive but seen it where it was not once that I can think of (which is rather strange when you think about it, and I dont know what protocol might have been directing such an event!?) But that was really the early 90's generation of chess PC computers where I was seeing it, and those much earlier were always doing strange things. The latest ones, I cannot say.
hedgehog 14 ( +1 | -1 )
According to FIDE rules, it has to be the same position on the board at any time during the game repeated 3 times (or more). Simple as that. :)
sayb 43 ( +1 | -1 )
ionadowman you are actually mistaken

it doesn't have to be the same side to move each time.

that's the point of the rule being three and not two.

if it were the second time the position occured but a different player's turn, it would essentially be a different position with different dynamics. but if it's the third time, then it must have occured at least twice for one player and hence no progress was made since then.
ganstaman 39 ( +1 | -1 )
sayb I'm almost positive you are wrong. The point of the rule as I understood it was somewhat different. We have position A and the players play it out. They arrive exactly at position A again and are given another shot to make something out of it. Nothing wrong with failing to do something useful once. However, once we arrive at position A a third time, it's clear that a draw is in order.
ganstaman 93 ( +1 | -1 )
and i have proof! ->

9.2 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves)

a) is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or

b) has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, READ_HERE if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.
Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer in this manner be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently.
ganstaman 37 ( +1 | -1 )
Just in case things come off the wrong way:

I probably should have started with "I'm almost positive ionadowman is right" instead of what I actually said.

And my ! in the title of my next post isn't me gloating, it's me being excited that I have found a definitive answer.

In other words, I hope sayb doesn't/didn't take any offense.
sayb 31 ( +1 | -1 )
i tested it with an engine and it also verified that indeed the same player must have the move. strange. it seemed more logical the way i described it. a few sites i've played blitz on have it programmed wrong.

i never thought of it as a 'slack' rule. always thought of it as a logic thing.

my mistake.
gfweiss 15 ( +1 | -1 )
Claim not offered I've drawn several games on GK by the 3 time repitition rule. But a draw was never offered, rather the game just automatically ended as a draw.
wschmidt 36 ( +1 | -1 )
And as we all know... this whole question is moot in the GK blitz module. It won't let you repeat the third position. I just played a game over lunch time and confirmed it the hard way. Lost on time because my diagonal queen move which kept checking the king wasn't allowed after the second repetition. I was pleased to have found it though.