I hate the threefold repetition rule

Arisktotle
Chessflyfisher wrote:

I "hate" people who "hate" this rule! 

I never hated this rule but I am on the verge of hating it now. So much brainwork involved frustrated.png

Arisktotle

Some notes with additional views:

Where tournament (competition) rules do not apply, the 75M rule does not apply and there is no issue.

There should not be an issue with "legal moves" in this matter as there is a priority condition preceding the "legal moves". Before a "legal move" can be played, one should first establish that the game is not terminated by something that occurred earlier. The "right to play" determines whether or not subsequent "legal" or "illegal" moves can be considered at all. It is a tail end evaluation of the preceding move and not of the next one.

In general, the outcome of analytical moves is not different from actual moves for the following reason: there must always be a proof game. By stating that a particular series of "legal moves" is available, you must be able to produce a proof game with real moves for that series which does not transgress any rules. It is inevitable that when such a proof game passes the 75M line, a draw is assigned and the game is terminated. After it, the "right to play" has disappeared and nothing can happen. If you claim a position is not dead at some point, you must be capable of producing a legal proof game with a win/lose outcome.

It is valid to permit different requirements for "legal moves" (and "right to play") in an analytical move series from a real move series, but such should be specified by the rules. This is for instance the case when analyzing checkmate. The analytical actions to justify a checkmate verdict look very much like normal "legal moves" but of course they violate several rules. That is why FIDE chose to circumvent the common concept of "legal move" at this point. Consequently, you need not present a proof game for capturing the opposing king.

Hope this helps in the discussion.

 

Numquam
MARattigan schreef:

@Numquat

You would presumably also argue that the following White to play position is not dead.


 The FIDE definition of legal move requires only that arts.3.1-3.9 be met. Those do not include

1.2 The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move, then the players move alternately, with the player with the dark-coloured pieces (Black) making the next move.

 

so Nc6, Nd8, Nf7  is a series of legal moves resulting in checkmate, but the series could not be played because of art.1.2.

That would be the case, at any rate, if FIDE had added a rule stating that a player may make a move with only one of his own pieces, but that omission is clearly an oversight. With the oversight I would agree with you because no series of legal moves can result in checkmate. (The last move would have to be irreversible and that can't happen with this material.) 

Note that the series of moves I suggested is still a series of legal moves even if each of the positions with the a7 knight relocated to b5, c6 and c8 had occurred four times in previous play.  

Nice find. The definition of a 'series of moves' is missing in the handbook, but we all know what is meant. When reading rules I try to make as few assumptions as possible. What you are saying is that a 'series of moves' depends on if it is a game with or without tournament rules. I don't agree with that. I use only article one. The rule dead draw is the same for both informal games and tournament games. No clear distinction has been made in the rules.

And btw that position with white to move is illegal, because the game ended due to stalemate. Even if it was legal then it isn't dead because black can get selfmated.

Edit: I responded to a deleted post.

MARattigan

@Numquam

I realised the position I gave was not dead anyway so I'd deleted it before you answered. Give me a mo. Corrected version hopefully on its way.

OK: I don't think the change of position affects what you said apart  from the last two paragraphs.

You would presumably also argue that the following White to play position is not dead.




The FIDE definition of legal move requires only that arts.3.1-3.9 be met. Those do not include

1.2 The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move, then the players move alternately, with the player with the dark-coloured pieces (Black) making the next move.

so Nc8, Ne7, Ng8# is a series of legal moves resulting in checkmate, but the series could not be played because of art.1.2.

That would be the case, at any rate, if FIDE had added a rule stating that a player may make a move with only one of his own pieces, but that omission is clearly an oversight.

 

MARattigan
Numquam wrote:
MARattigan schreef:
 

What you are saying is that a 'series of moves' depends on if it is a game with or without tournament rules.

Not at all. Series of (legal) moves depends only on article 3 which is in Basic Rules. None of this section is overridden in Competition Rules. What I am saying is that a series of legal moves may be playable under Basic Rules but not under Competition Rules. So a series of legal moves is such irrespective of the rules in force, but if, for example, they result in a sixfold repetition, they are not playable under Competition Rules

The rule dead draw is the same for both informal games and tournament games. No clear distinction has been made in the rules.

The rule is the same in both cases, but " a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves" depends on the rules under which the game is played, because a series of legal moves may be playable under Basic Rules but not under Competition Rules. A player cannot checkmate the opponent's king with any series of legal moves that is not playable.

I didn't understand the comment about stalemate/selfmate by the way. Is it applicable in the new position?

 

MARattigan

@Numquam

Art.3.2 says

3.2

The bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands.

not "A bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands excepting the square on which it stands", so arguably the mating sequence in #105 could also be 1.Nc8 Bg6, 2.Ne7 Bg6, 3.Ng8#. This would also be playable since the game would not be terminated by stalemate before the mate occurred and the initial position would therefore not be dead on either interpretation (unless every mating series of legal moves would be terminated instead by the 75 move or 5 fold repetition rules in which case it would still be dead on my interpretation).

But I digress.

 

EndgameStudier

Curious, does the 75 move rule mean that whoever reaches move 75 or completes move 75. Is there a difference between the 149th half-move and the 150th half-move in terms of when a draw is claimed, declared?

MARattigan
EndgameStudier wrote:

Curious, does the 75 move rule mean that whoever reaches move 75 or completes move 75. Is there a difference between the 149th half-move and the 150th half-move in terms of when a draw is claimed, declared?

When both sides have made 75 moves the game is automatically terminated under the rule. The draw is not claimed. The rule doesn't apply unless Competition Rules are in effect.

Morphys-Revenge

well all I can say is if you have a better move to play than to repeat the position threefold, then by all means play it and avoid the draw. otherwise you are tacitly admitting you have nothing better than to repeat the position which means you must feel that is the best you can get. Your opponent obviously feels the same. if you both simply shampoo, rinse, repeat, shampoo, rinse, repeat it sounds like no one will make any progress. no one will win, no one will lose. Voila - it's a draw baby!

Numquam
MARattigan schreef:
Numquam wrote:
MARattigan schreef:
 

What you are saying is that a 'series of moves' depends on if it is a game with or without tournament rules.

Not at all. Series of (legal) moves depends only on article 3 which is in Basic Rules. None of this section is overridden in Competition Rules. What I am saying is that a series of legal moves may be playable under Basic Rules but not under Competition Rules. So a series of legal moves is such irrespective of the rules in force, but if, for example, they result in a sixfold repetition, they are not playable under Competition Rules, 

The rule dead draw is the same for both informal games and tournament games. No clear distinction has been made in the rules.

The rule is the same in both cases, but " a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves" depends on the rules under which the game is played, because a series of legal moves may be playable under Basic Rules but not under Competition Rules. A player cannot checkmate the opponent's king with any series of legal moves that is not playable.

I didn't understand the comment about stalemate/selfmate by the way. Is it applicable in the new position?

 

The rule does not say that the series has to be playable under tournament rules. That is where I disagree with you. The series can be played using basic rules. I don't see any reason to use a different dead draw rule for tournament games.

The comment about stalemate applied only to the previous example, because black had only a king. In that position black's last move had to be a king move which is impossible. In your current example black's last move is a pawn capture.

Numquam
MARattigan schreef:

@Numquam

Art.3.2 says

3.2

The bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands.

not "A bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands excepting the square on which it stands", so arguably the mating sequence in #105 could also be 1.Nc8 Bg6, 2.Ne7 Bg6, 3.Ng8#. This would also be playable since the game would not be terminated by stalemate before the mate occurred and the initial position would therefore not be dead on either interpretation (unless every mating series of legal moves would be terminated instead by the 75 move or 5 fold repetition rules in which case it would still be dead on my interpretation).

But I digress.

 

Funny, but I don't fully agree. The word 'move' implicitly suggests that the piece 'moves' and does not stay on the same square. The rules can be formulated more precise as you say. Maybe add a rule that keeping pieces on the same square isn't considered a move. 

MARattigan
Numquam wrote:
MARattigan schreef:

@Numquam

Art.3.2 says

3.2

The bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands.

not "A bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands excepting the square on which it stands", so arguably the mating sequence in #105 could also be 1.Nc8 Bg6, 2.Ne7 Bg6, 3.Ng8#. This would also be playable since the game would not be terminated by stalemate before the mate occurred and the initial position would therefore not be dead on either interpretation (unless every mating series of legal moves would be terminated instead by the 75 move or 5 fold repetition rules in which case it would still be dead on my interpretation).

But I digress.

 

Funny, but I don't fully agree. The word 'move' implicitly suggests that the piece 'moves' and does not stay on the same square. The rules can be formulated more precise as you say. Maybe add a rule that keeping pieces on the same square isn't considered a move. 

That's one of the reasons I said "arguably", but of course you can usually move a piece just slightly without transgressing the boundaries of the square it's on. I'm pretty sure FIDE didn't intend a move to the same square to count as legal.

MARattigan
Numquam wrote:
MARattigan schreef:
...

The rule does not say that the series has to be playable under tournament rules. That is where I disagree with you. The series can be played using basic rules. I don't see any reason to use a different dead draw rule for tournament games.

...

Yes, that is exactly the point of disagreement.

I contend that, "the players" in the statement, "a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves" refers to the players playing the game, "position" refers to the position that has arisen in the game and "neither player can checkmate the opponent's king with any series of legal moves" refers to possible continuations in the game.  The rules that would apply to such possible continuations would be the rules in effect for the game. I think that is the natural reading of the rule.

There's no question of using a different dead draw rule in tournament and other games; the rule is defined in the Basic Rules section and not overridden in the Competition Rules section. In the absence of anything in the rule saying that for the purposes of the rule the possible continuations should not be in accordance with the rules in effect for the game I see no justification for your argument.

The rule, after all, is intended to terminate games where the players actually have no way to mate. If they can't mate under the rules in effect, they can't mate. The fact that they could under different rules is not relevant.

Numquam
MARattigan schreef:
Numquam wrote:
MARattigan schreef:
...

The rule does not say that the series has to be playable under tournament rules. That is where I disagree with you. The series can be played using basic rules. I don't see any reason to use a different dead draw rule for tournament games.

...

Yes, that is exactly the point of disagreement.

I contend that, "the players" in the statement, "a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves" refers to the players playing the game, "position" refers to the position that has arisen in the game and "neither player can checkmate the opponent's king with any series of legal moves" refers to possible continuations in the game.  The rules that would apply to such possible continuations would be the rules in effect for the game. I think that is the natural reading of the rule. There's no question of using a different dead draw rule in tournament and other games; the rule is defined in the Basic Rules section and not overridden in the Competition Rules section. In the absence of anything in the rule saying that for the purposes of the rule the possible continuations should not be in accordance with the rules in effect for the game I see no justification for your argument.

The rule, after all, is intended to terminate games where the players actually have no way to mate.

On the contrary, I don't need to justify my argument because I make as few assumptions as possible. You need to justify why the tournament rules would apply while they are not mentioned. 

If you read the rules from top to bottom, you'll find the dead draw rule a second time in the match rules, article 6.9. The 75 move rule is not mentioned at that point. So it would be illogical to assume that it would apply. Rules are ordered in a logical way and if they are not they should mention relevant articles. If the rule is as you think, then article 9.6.2 has to be mentioned. In absence of anything only the basic rules apply.

 

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

The 3-fold repetition rule is quite fascinating. Sometimes even GM's don't realize they can declare it.

Remember when that time when Bobby Fischer claimed a 3-fold draw against Petrosian and he freaked out ?

MARattigan

@Numquam

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree. The Basic Rules are also not mentioned. I think you assume more than I.  Article 6.9 is a rule governing the outcome if a player runs out of time and is couched in different terms from 5.2.2 which is normally understood as the dead position rule and terminates the game irrespective of the situation regarding the clocks. They're allowed to make the rules different. The article I was referring to in post #63 was 5.2.2. I was assuming neither player had run out of time.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

 

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Google writes:

 

In the third game[6] of the 1971 Candidates Final Match between Bobby Fischer and Tigran Petrosian, Petrosian (with a better position) accidentally allowed the position after 30.Qe2 to be repeated three times (see diagram). Play continued:

30... Qe5
31. Qh5 Qf6
32. Qe2 (second time) Re5
33. Qd3 Rd5?

and then Fischer wrote his next move

34. Qe2 (third time)

on his scoresheet, which is the third appearance of the position with Black to move, and he claimed a draw.[7] At first Petrosian was not aware of what was going on. Incidentally, this was the first time a draw by threefold repetition had been claimed in his career (Plisetsky & Voronkov 2005:283–84), (Kasparov 2004:422–23), (Byrne 1971:682). This also illustrates that the intermediate moves do not need to be the same – just the positions.

MARattigan

To be more relevant than my last few posts have been, I have always understood that the threefold repetition rule could be claimed only at the point a position is repeated or about to be repeated on the next move.

I've just looked at this game:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1268705

and I notice that after White's move 102 the legend Three time repetition claimable appears to the right of the board and continues to appear until the end of the game, implying the draw can be claimed any time after such triple repetition has occurred.

What are other readers views on that?

mongoose1000

If you hate the 3 fold reputation rule, then logic would be that you as one of the players would play another move instead. Why should the responsibility be on your opponent? No one is going to make a move that worsens their position, so it is logical that after 3 fold reputation, the game is deemed a draw.