Three fold repetition rule

For sure not the site staff. There is a page on the site about rules and basics available for everyone interested to study them: http://www.chess.com/learn-how-to-play-chess. There is even a separate page about how to claim a draw: http://support.chess.com/Knowledgebase/Article/View/40/0/how-do-i-claim-a-draw.

Ok, but why not that? What would be it's drawback?

They haven't hidden it. The rules are there to see. Some beginners might struggle with the castling rule, should they have a note in game page explaining that too?

They can't post all the rules on the page because some might be unfamiliar with them.

Also, as stated above, in CC chess, the draw button graphic does change. I'm not sure why it wouldn't then do the same in Live. If not, maybe that's a quick fix.

Still, it's a mountain out of a molehill really. Everyone familiar with the threefold repetition rule should know that you have to make the draw offer. Auto draws would cause so much uproar that it isn't worth implementing. As it stands, they play by FIDEs rules. I'd imagine that's good enough for most.

Changing the graphic is the first thing I suggested, and that didn't get a warm reception.

As far as the rules being "there to see", please try to put yourself in the position of a player who knows the game and comes to chess.com to play. Is he going to spend much time on a page about the rules showing how the pieces move? Probably not. Is he going to randomly type http://support.chess.com/Knowledgebase/Article/View/40/0/how-do-i-claim-a-draw. into his browser? Again, no. I'm not accusing the staff of deliberately hiding anything, I'm just pointing out that the rule is not where a lot of people coming to this site will see it. The fact that 3 people in this thread didn't see it until someone told them about it proves this.

And as I made the point earlier in this thread, there are no FIDE rules for computerized chess. Fide does not require you to click a draw button. In a OTB blitz game, you would claim a 3 fold draw by verbally stating such. In computerized chess their is no verbal component. Other sites, knowing how insanely rare it is that players accidentally get into a 3 fold repetition where neither of them is trying to draw, handle this with auto-draws, (and without any uproar I might add). This site also did that years ago. Now they do things differently.

Of course, it would be absurd to post all the rules of the game on the page. This rule however, which is not a FIDE rule and is different from all the other online chess (and offline chess games as well) sites does deserve to be more prominently displayed.

Anyway, now you know Julio, so just click the draw button next time.

Julio might be the exception that proves the rule, because I bet 99% of people, reaching a position for the third time, are going to click "offer draw" anyway, assuming their opponent wants a draw as well based on their behaviour. So if at that point it becomes an implicit claim of a draw, it should serve everyone well.

well i guess it just depends on where you start

I've never been fond of the expression "the exception that proves the rule", because exceptions do not prove rules they offer evidence against them. The more exceptions there are, the less valid the rule is. In this case, there are 3 in this thread; me, Mark, and the original poster. I believe this issue is confusing more people than just me, and probably most of them don't read these forums, else I wouldn't bother trying to offer fixes to it.

I think the reason you might not see how this arises is because you're probably not thinking of people who are mainly 1 - 3 minute players. You say "assuming your opponent wants a draw as well", which is going to be a good assumption in a longer game, but usually the player with more time left in the 1-3 minute game does not want a draw. The guy who forced the 3 fold repetition is trying to save himself from losing by the clock.

I don't believe that writing "to claim a 3 fold repetition click the draw button" would lead to the surge of people annoying their opponents that some have suggested, but in the idea that it might how about the following instead?

Add a third button (there's plenty of room there) with a label saying "3 Fold" on it. Use that button to claim the 3 fold draw. If clicked at an inappropriate time it can give the message "The current position has not been reached three times" to the player who clicked it without annoying the other player. This needn't affect the other button which could continue to function as it does now, (offers draw or claims 3 fold when appropriate).

(why write a post, when someone already wrote it for you ? Just quote it !)

If the game is a theoretical draw, maybe we could get a flashing light warning you to make the correct moves from now on.

Why bother reading through a thread when you can just quote what's already been rebutted?

If a move is illegal, maybe we could require you to click the abort button in order to make your opponent abort that move. Ad ridicio.

There should be a forum button so that when you want to capitulate an argument, it will issue a generic retraction and apology so you don't have to actually do it, saving face.

Nah, that would interfere with the maturation of the posters.

In (real) blitz games, you win immediately, when your opponent makes an illegal move (but of course, you have to claim it).

Why actually rebut it instead of pretending it was (rebutted) ?

I did read the thread, and the fact people did not agree with you doesn't make them worthless listening to.

Here's the rebuttal to that which I wrote earlier...

"As far as the rules being "there to see", please try to put yourself in the position of a player who knows the game and comes to chess.com to play. Is he going to spend much time on a page about the rules showing how the pieces move? Probably not. Is he going to randomly type http://support.chess.com/Knowledgebase/Article/View/40/0/how-do-i-claim-a-draw. into his browser? Again, no. I'm not accusing the staff of deliberately hiding anything, I'm just pointing out that the rule is not where a lot of people coming to this site will see it. The fact that 3 people in this thread didn't see it until someone told them about it proves this."

... even if you disagree with the rebuttal, explain why. Ignoring it and just repeating the original argument really isn't worth listening to.

Fair enough.

...because, assuming that people manage to start a game, to choose the time control, to play the moves, makes me assume that they manage to claim a draw. Not that they instinctively know how to do it, but they try the first thing they can imagine, and surprise, it's precisely what chess.com had designed.

The fact that the answer is in the FAQ for those who do not get it is enough for me.

Agree, of course with millions of members it won't click for the occasional person here and there, but I don't think that justifies have warning lights go off for players who are supposed to keep track of whether there is a 3 move repetition or not. But it really wont make that much difference either way, tbh.

I disagree that the unique 3 fold drawing requirements of this site's implementation of computerized chess affects as small of a minority as you claim; but exaggerating my position to the ridiculous point of asking for warning lights to go off is supposed to accomplish what exactly?

I'll try again with my 3rd suggested compromise. For those of you who don't have any problem with the way the 3 fold draws are handled now, would you see any drawback to adding another button labelled "claim 3 fold" next to the draw and abort/resign buttons with the following criteria?

1. When pressed after a 3 fold repetition will claim the draw.

2. When pressed at any other time will give a message to the player who pressed it explaining that the position had not been reached 3 times while not sending any annoying messages to the other player.

3. The original draw button would keep it's same functionality and not be changed in any way.

Yes : the fact that you are adding another button for a benefit that I estimate near from zero.

Adding a button is not a neutral operation, it simply decreases simplicity. To push it far, imagine having to move your pieces around a 1000 pages long end user agreement that chess.com would post all over all pages to be juridically safe.