Draws by repetition on this site are not being called correctly

PrawnEatsPrawn:

That's exactly the answer I have received from chess.com support staff!  And it was probably you I talked to at the chat room.

Interesting!  You attack me for pointing the problems, instead of attacking the problems or looking into them!  That's customer service to you here at chess.com!  Oh, sorry, I am not a premium member.

I offered to send the games I was talking about to chess.com support staff, but no response!  I have emailed the support staff three times and no response, either.

No, you don't have to waste time on me.  But, the facts remain that the problems or "bugs" do exist here.  You can simply ignore them!

You're most likely a member of the chess.com support staff, but I am wondering, prawneatsprawn, if you're the owner or part owner of chess.com.  Perhaps, I should find that out.  Maybe I should talk to "Kohai"!

I teach chess at 8 different schools in our area involving almost two hundred student chessplayers.  And recently, my chess classes were the "Headline" of the biggest local newspaper's "Local Section".  So, don't insult me and tell me I don't know what I a talking about!

I have considered signing up myself and my students as premium members at chess.com.  But after my encounter with you, I don't think I will do that.  I will just simply look for another website.  For sure, there must be another one that competes with chess.com.

By the way, you can even ban me to play here.  You have that power!

what do you mean about gameknot Prawn?

It's also important to be clear about what constitutes a position.

Not only should all of the peices be in the same places, but in addition it must be the same player to move

Note that a couple of things that intuitively should constitute different positions aren't considered by the rule: 

• Castling rights can be different from one position to the next and the rule still considers the positions equivalent.
• Similarly, en-passant rights can also be different without affecting the "equivalence" of the positions.

Er, this is where I correct myself.  From FIDE's rules:

Turns it it is USCF that is ambiguous about the question of castling and en-passant rights.

The problem of three-fold repetition that you mention is a bug, is not a bug. FIDE laws/rules of chess (and the USCF) state that the draw has to be claimed. It is not automatic. If other sites do that, then that is their prerogative but it isn't an official rule of chess.

Are there bugs on the site? Yes.

Is that one of them? No.

I was playing live on there, having a tough game but found a resource. Sacked a piece for a repetition only to not be allowed to repeat the third time. I was compelled to vary, losing the game. When I questioned my opponent, he told me "that's the rules here, no three-fold repetition" . I closed my account and haven't been back since.

DanteBanez_AbraPinoy:

    I will attempt to explain things a bit more tactfully than PrawnEatsPrawn (who, by the way, is NOT a staff member or the owner of chess.com; Erik is).

    First of all, I will reiterate that it is chess.com, not these other websites, that is following the appropriate FIDE rules, or at least as closely as possible.  According to these rules, three-fold repetitions or 50-move draws are not automatic.  They must be claimed by one of the players.  If neither player claims the draw, then the game continues.  On chess.com, you can claim such a draw once the conditions are met.  By making a correct claim, the chess.com server will award you with a draw; the other player doesn't get a chance to "deny" the draw.  I know this works properly because I've done it on more than one occasion.

    In regards to insufficient material, you'll have to show me such a position.  Every other forum topic I've seen on this subject, the FIDE rules regarding insufficient material were appropriately applied.  Remember that sometimes it takes BOTH player's material to be considered sufficient.  An example would be King and Bishop vs. King and Bishop; with Bishops on the same color, it is a dead draw, while Bishops on opposite colors means there is a chance for mate and, thus, running out of time is a loss and not a draw.

    For the issue of "lag time," I'm can't point out much more than has already been said elsewhere.  The main thing to remember is that chess.com is using different software or coding methods to keep track of time than is used on other sites.  The different ways all have their advantages and disadvantages.  One of the disadvantages to how chess.com does it is that sometimes it can appear as if your oppenent is getting unexpected bonus time, while to your opponent it appears as if YOU are.  I can't say why the chess.com programmers decided to code things the way they did.  They obviously felt that the advantages for their method outweighed the disadvantages.  Not being a programmer myself, I don't know what those are.

    For the situation you designated where material is even, yet neither player can make any headway, I'll just point out that such situations are easy for a human to see, but far more difficult for a computer.  That's just the way that a human brain is different than a computer.  Do you have any idea how many calculations your brain does just walking from one room to another?  Please excuse the pun, but it is truly mind-boggling.  We're only now capable of developing computers and robots "smart" enough to do something almost every human child learns to do in the first couple of years of life.  Consider the position below.  A human can tell with a glance that there is no possible way for either player to make any headway, but a computer could take several minutes, hours, or possibly even days crunching all of the possible variations before conclusively proving it.  Considering how many such positions it is possible to think of, it isn't surprising that the chess.com servers don't have these positions automatically drawn, whereas in an OTB game an arbiter or TD can allow a player to claim a draw in these situations.  This isn't a failing of chess.com, it is a result of the limitations of current technology.

    One final point I would like to make to rooperi:  The reason that the three-fold repetition is, specifically, 3 and not 2, is that it is entirely possible to have a position come about a second time by "accident," perhaps via a miscalculation of a long variation.  Making a position happen a third time, however, is probably more indicative that the desire for a draw is sincere.  This reminds me of a custom in the RPG Legend of the Five Rings where the proper etiquette when offered a gift is to refuse it twice, thus allowing the giver the opportunity to appear to be polite in offering a gift without having to actually give one.  If such a gift is offered three times, then you can be sure that the offer is sincere, and it is then polite to accept it.

The 5th edition rule book, the current official rule book, states the following:

14C. Triple occurence of position. The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player on the move when the same position is about to appear for at least the third time or has just appeared for at least the third time, the same player being on the move each time. In both cases, the position is considered the same if pieces of the same kind and color occupy the same squares and if the possible moves of all the pieces are the same, including the right to castle or to capture a pawn en passant.

Don't know about previous rule editions but they aren't so ambiguous now.

With regard to castling and en passant, the history of the positions must be taken into account when deciding whether they are equivalent. (As distinct from identical.) It is said that Korchnoy once castled in an important Interzonal Tournament game after having moved his Rook to and fro, and neither his opponent nor anyone else noticed that anything was wrong until the game was over.

OmniPaul:

Thank you very much for your post.  I appreciate it very much!

Your post is exactly the answer I was looking for.  Now, I understand!

As I already mentioned, I teach chess at 8 different schools involving almost 200 student chessplayers and I intended to become a premium member and so are my student chessplayers.

Encountering somebody like "prawneatsprawn", who I assumed was a chess.com support staff member, would have resulted in lost revenue for chess.com.  I am only just one person expressing what I have experienced and seeking some answers but then attacked and insulted for doing so.  I wonder how many people had or have such an encounter.

Again, thank you for clarifying things up.

Your chess students must really benefit from a coach who doesn't know the rules of the game or take advice from those who do know (i.e. the mods).

p.s. Stop "assuming" things, you seem to invariably be wrong in that respect. More ears, less chops, Sunshine.

I haven't ever looked around at what is actually offered but you might look into http://www.chesskid.com/

It is ran by chess.com but geared to kids and has features for coaches. Might be worth it for what you want to do. Or here, but I thought I would at least make you aware of that site.

I didn't know you could play live on gameknot :)

I have 3 games in progress there atm but it's rather just finsishing them off

Yes -- I realize now that I was confusing draw by repetition with the 50 move rule, under which neither is considered:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/50-move-rule5

Martin_Stahl:

I am aware of the existence of www.chesskid.com, which is, as you said, part of chess.com.  However, after my encounter with "prawneatsprawn", I would rather take my and my student chessplayers business elsewhere, where we'll get better treatment.

I did my search and found one website which has similar services as chess.com - Chess Tempo!

PrawnEatsPrawn:

Whatever!

Chess.com lost some potential revenue because of you!  It might not be that big, but still revenue.  I wonder how many chessplayers had an encounter with you and took their business elsewhere.  It's a pity that chess.com is "associated" to somebody like you - no tack or customer service skills.  You're bad for the company's business.  Chess.com needs people like "omnipaul" who knows how to handle things.

You can have the last word, as I expect you to!

Dear Amazon.com -- one of your customers made a nasty comment on one of my reviews.  Because you have such a nasty customer, I will no longer do business with you.

Dear AT&T -- I have discovered that my stupid brother-in-law is a customer of yours.  Because you have such a nasty customer, I am switching to Sprint.

Dear Fidelity Investiments -- my blowhard neighbor has some investment funds with you.  Because you have such a nasty client, I will not invest with you but will instead place my money with JunkBondsRus . . . 

Edit:  Scratch that 3rd example.  I just looked at your profile, and I see you're not old enough to legally have your own investment fund.

Scathing rebuttal that. Politicians and debate clubs should take note.

I joined this thread because a game I'm playing at the moment just had three consecutive moves the same, and I also was expecting a draw announcement!  Three move repetition is a draw- end of!  If chess.com does not have this, then there is a problem!!!