21830 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
This is not an important theoretical question, and I doubt it will ever come up in a game. But still I wonder...
A draw by 3-fold repitition requires that the same exact position occur three times, including side to move, and castling/en passant oppportunities. My question is about what else is required to be considered the "same exact position."
For example, what if the same position occurs, except White's two knights have swapped squares? Is one knight considered a different piece from the other?
I'm guessing most people would consider them equal for the purposes of this rule, but I can also imagine an argument over it if a big tournament win hung in the balance.
I'm sure it's considered the same position :)
Probably, rule of thumb is if the FEN is the same, the position is the same. (except for move counters)
What bugs me, is why three times? Why not draw on the 1st repetition? There is some argument that it is a time saving device for people in time trouble, but is that a valid reason?
You can repeat position without the same moves being made, so I don't think 1 repetition is necessarily proof that no progress is being made.
Well, it shouldn't matter what moves led to the position. What matters, is that with the same two players playing, the position leads back to itself.
Why is 3 times better than 2? Wouldn't 4 be better than 3, then?
Because you have to choose a number.
You can repeat once without there definitely being no progress, if one player simply repeats to see if their opponent will make a different move. If they don't then the player can decide whether to play something else or repeat.
Not allowing a single repetition means that this process isn't possible, nor could you play a particular double check say with queen and knight and realised you move your knight in the wrong direction and go back.
Lol, Scott, I'll never agree with that.
Repeats to see if their opponent makes a different move? That's like a take-back in an unrated game! If you repeat once, you are stating that you are not interested in "making progress". If you allow your opponent to repeat, same thing.
And if you move your knight in the wrong direction, why should you get a do-over, only in this very specific case?
This has been my bugbear for ages
"Repeats to see if their opponent makes a different move? That's like a take-back in an unrated game! If you repeat once, you are stating that you are not interested in "making progress"."
No you're not, because you know you can repeat twice safely, you can test the water.
It's used to get to the move limit or gain time with increments too.
The specific case is because the opponents options are limited, so the redo is by the board position, not a takeback.
In timed games with increment repeating moves is a valid tactic for gaining time to think about the position in OTB play. In timed games without an increment, repeating moves is a valid tactic for helping your opponent burn time off their clock if you have a time advantage. As time management is both a part of the game and a skill that can be used to advantage, both tactics would have their efficacy eliminated under your proposal and thus the difficulty of the game decreased.
It's used to get to the move limit or gain time with increments too....
That's my point, it's used to manipulate the system, not to play chess.
Time management is part of chess. Knowing how to use the clock to your advantage is a chess skill.
The repetition move obviously wasn't made for getting time increment, but I agree with Scottrf. Why is it a big deal if the rule can be used to gain time?
I lean in that direction as well, but we should remember that the rule pre-dates the creation of FEN diagrams.
It's covered on the wiki.
And in the FIDE rules:
"Positions as in (a) and (b) areconsidered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same."
Drawing on the first repetition would be awful. You make a move, your opponent answers, you realize that your best option is to retreat, so you do it - and now your opponent has already the chance to claim a draw. Simply awful.
? can you give an example?
Being able to admit your mistake is part of chess. I wonder if it has ever happened that the same checkmate has occured 3 times (with illegal moves, probably at a low level).
Nothing's repeated yet, white can repeat by Re1, but since he' a piece up, why not play something else?
Are you serious? 1. You claim draw before the position is repeated again. 2. Just remove the white bishop then, it's the concept we're talking about not the exact position.
I hate openings
by Coach_Leo a few minutes ago
what happens when my rating hits zero?
by COOL_SHEEP-77 2 minutes ago
I am unbeatable part 2
by COOL_SHEEP-77 6 minutes ago
Why didn't Fischer play Karpov
by Teichmann70 7 minutes ago
Tell me which opening moves to play in my next games!
by IamNoMaster 7 minutes ago
by etc2000chess 10 minutes ago
mate in two #3
by Arisktotle 25 minutes ago
1400 in blitz!
by AIM-AceMove 31 minutes ago
Are GMs stupid?
by Rob3rtJamesFischer 34 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!