No. If the same position is played on the board 3 times in a row then it is automatically a draw.
Just a question :Perpetual check
Sort:
It's not automatically a draw; you have to claim it with the "Claim Draw" button. With the above moves, the same position is reached for the third time with 38... Kg7 (or earlier depending on where the pieces were before 34. Qe8), after which either player has the right to claim a draw. But the game can go on if neither player chooses to claim.
Glasshouse00 wrote:
No. If the same position is played on the board 3 times in a row then it is automatically a draw.
Not only is Azukikuru right in stating that it is NOT an automatic draw (you do have to CLAIM the draw), but "perpetual checks" are draws BECAUSE it would result in threefold repetition. Saying that something isn't a perpetual check because you get threefold repetition is thus nonsense.
Though answering the original question, it's definitely a threefold repetition (more really), but I can't say whether it's a perpetual check without seeing the actual board. What I can say is that it would be perpetual check if the checking side can keep checking indefinitely no matter what the other side plays. For all I know, the moves above could arise simply from one side being content with being constantly checked and choosing not to force the checks to stop.
Glasshouse00 wrote:
No. If the same position is played on the board 3 times in a row then it is automatically a draw.
This wrong in two ways.
First, the same position has to appear on the board three times. It does not have to be "in a row" or in consecutive moves.
Second, draws are never automatic, they must be claimed.
Jan 12, 2012
0
#6
Glasshouse00 wrote:
No. If the same position is played on the board 3 times in a row then it is automatically a draw.
FALSE - The position DOES NOT have to appear 3 times in a row, just 3x. Fischer was supposed to be an expert at being able to recall triple repetitions that did not occur 3x in a row (when he was in hot water that is)
Furthermore, the draw has to be claimed by someone before they make the move resulting in a triple repetition - it is NOT automatic!
I see, I usually play on other systems where it sets the draw automatically, I thought about a button for claming a draw but I was running out of time so I didnt spot the button in time.
Thanks again your clarification
For on-line play, there isn't a universal standard. Some systems require a claim and others do not. Most systems try to follow OTB rules, where there is a universal standard and a claim is required.
Sorry guys. Completely forgot about claiming a draw. I was always a little fuzzy on this rule too so thanks for clearing it up!
No worries, Glasshouse -- honestly the details of how to claim a draw (compared to offering a draw) aren't something most people really keep straight. 'Cause frankly it's pretty rare in practice (at least in my experience) that you run into a situation where you have to do it.
Kingpatzer wrote:
Glasshouse00 wrote:
No. If the same position is played on the board 3 times in a row then it is automatically a draw.
This wrong in two ways.
First, the same position has to appear on the board three times. It does not have to be "in a row" or in consecutive moves.
Second, draws are never automatic, they must be claimed.
The draw "There is no legal sequence of moves that can lead to mate" in FIDE rules is automatic. This includes stalemate, K v K, K+N v K and K+B v K, which are recognized by chess.com, and for instance positions in which only pawns and kings remain, the pawns are interlocked immobile and prevent the opposing king from approaching them - which chess.com can't recognize. K+B v K+B is also automatically drawn if the bishops are of the same color; I'm not sure if chess.com checks for that.
Silfir that still needs to be claimed and adjudicated. It is not "automatic," you must raise the point to the arbiter who will then interpret the position in light of the rules.
In practice, of course, strong players will recognize the drawn position and agree to a draw. But if one player does not recognize the situation and continues to play, then the other player must initiate a claim to the arbiter.
However, you are correct in that there is an automatic draw -- which is of course the stalemate.
Kingpatzer wrote:
Silfir that still needs to be claimed and adjudicated. It is not "automatiNoc," you must raise the point to the arbiter who will then interpret the position in light of the rules.
In practice, of course, strong players will recognize the drawn position and agree to a draw. But if one player does not recognize the situation and continues to play, then the other player must initiate a claim to the arbiter.
However, you are correct in that there is an automatic draw -- which is of course the stalemate.
I'm talking about FIDE rules, maybe there's a misunderstanding there. But I can assure you that any position in which there is no legal sequence of moves that can lead to mate (a "dead" position) is an automatic draw by FIDE rules. If the players play on, it's the same in theory as continuing to play on after mate, except of course players generally know that the game is over once there's a mate, but not all players know that it's also over if there is no way for either side to mate, so the arbiter might have to be called in - but for clarification of the rules as they are, not to adjudicate anything or affirm a claim for a draw. For instance, if time runs out after the dead position is reached, it doesn't have any effect (not that it would, since if you can't be mated by any sequence of moves, time running out would result in a draw anyway.)
I am quite sure that regardless of the ruleset used (you're talking about USCF, I presume?), K v K, K+B v K and K+N v K are considered automatic draws, just like the stalemate.
Fair enough. I don't have the precise wording in front of me and I'll presume you do.
However, as a practical point I'd point out that quite a few club players don't know how to interpret that rule (for instance that K+2N v K would not apply as help mates are possible), and in practice would require an arbiter. And in the cases where they do understand the rule, more than often there will be a draw offer prior to that position being reached, or in conjunction with the position being reached.
Sorry guys, just a question,
wouldn't be that a perpetual check?