Repetition of position

Notice

Please note that I will block rude people, trolls, spammers and "experts"

Warlord

Introduction

This forum topic is about the FIDE repetition of position rule in chess.

I think that this rule has 2 problems.

1. it is too complicated

2. the official FIDE Laws of Chess has a mistake relating to this rule.

Here are the required links:

FIDE

https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article

Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_repetition

Chess programming

https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Repetitions

There are enough clues there for you to figure it out.

I will explain later on why I think that the rule is too complicated and why I think that the FIDE Laws of Chess has a mistake.

Theory

World Champion Max Euwe performed analysis to prove that the original repetition rule that was based on a repeated sequence of moves was not sufficient.

His original simple test is detailed below.

The point he was trying to make was that using only the Knights the players could mix up the moves and avoid repeating a sequence of moves.

For example:

White could move Nf3 twice, then switch to Nc3, next cycle White could move Nc3 twice, etc

Black however could bring out both Knights then retreat both Knights, then bring out one Knight twice, etc.

One or both of the players could even move a Knight or Knights all around the board without making any captures before finally returning the Knight to it's starting square, then the next cycle of moves would start.

So the rule has to be based on repeated positions, not repeated moves.

Practice

Here is a game that I watched today in live chess.

Note that in practice usually, but not always, only 2 pieces (black + white) are moved when positions are repeated.

Note that in practice usually, but not always, 5 black moves and 5 white moves are required to repeat the position 3 times.

In this example the first move by black in the repeated position is Kd6

In this example the first move by white in the repeated position is Bd5

Where are all the "experts" when you need one?

Sorry, I forgot, the "experts" only surface after the fact, never before.

If the rule was not in place, people could keep checking you for no reason. It prevents people from being annoying, which is always a good thing.

@zinkelburger

Who said anything about the rule not being in place?

I think that the rule is necessary, what I am saying is:

1. it is too complicated

2. the published FIDE Laws of Chess has a mistake relating to this rule.

I will explain later why I think the rule is too complicated and how it could be simplified

but first ...

does anyone else see the mistake by FIDE, it is quite obvious if you look carefully.

This one?

@zinkelburger

Well seeing as you are interested and that you actually did look at the FIDE rules I will just tell you.

Nobody gets the prize however for spotting it

It's this one, at the foot of the post.

9.6 (a)

Try not to guess why, try to figure it out.

Note a few things...

It is an error

Wiki has not included it, probably because they don't understand it.

The chess programming link above does include it, but they also don't explain it.

This section was tagged on by FIDE and relates to automatic draws, not to claimed draws.

Try to figure out why it is a mistake and what it should actually say.

Give it a few days, no rush, I mean hardly anybody has noticed during the past 2 years.

Well basically it's a poor choice of words.

They mean that it is an automatic draw if the position has been repeated at least 5 times.

However in this case the rule ignores the fact that the players may move more than one type of piece each when positions are repeated.

If you look at the practical example above each player played 5 moves in the sequence and 3 of those moves were consecutive alternate moves, hence the position was repeated 3 times.

Consecutive alternate moves by each player is a poor choice of words, it is complicated, basically what it means is jump over the next move in the sequence.

Looking at the theory example above it was proved that a sequence of moves is not sufficient, it must be based on positions only, yet FIDE included a rule based on moves, not positions.

Ok, so I set a little trap.

FIDE could possibly now change the wording in rule 9.6 (a) to fix that little problem.

However...

They also need to remove the entire section 9.6 from the rules.

Why is that?

What do they need to add to replace it?

This is the section that needs to go:

For god's sake Tommy, go back to work.

When will you share the final work? I am anxious.

very nice! about time someone intelligent addressed this issue, well done!

Thank you man

I will continue this topic, but it's very late now, tired.

Goodnite

I put the word in quotes, like this:

"experts"

There are some people like this, every response follows the same pattern ...

Yes, yes, blah, blah, so I know better.

FIDE are changing the rules from July 2017. The new rules on Five times repetition will state that the game is drawn if :

Oh. You mean so-called experts. I was confused due to what seemed confusion on your part in a couple of early comments.

Please could you provide a link to your information source, thank you.

Ok, so they may have corrected the wording in the 2014 rules, so that fixes the first problem.

It does not however solve another serious problem.

I said that FIDE needs to remove that section from the rules.

Here is that section in layman terms, amended to use positions, not moves.

A game is drawn if:

1. The same position is repeated at least 5 times.

2. Each player has played at least 75 moves since the last capture or pawn move.

Both of these rules need to be removed, do you know why?

I would like to see your source of information, link?

Thank you