All diturbs to the opponent can be penalized! Par ex. a false claim or checkmated can be penalized by 12.9 a
The second with 12.9 b
ecc...
But normally I believe in the correct behavior from players so the penalties are not necessary.
what is exactly three fold repetion
Sort:
Jan 20, 2016
0
#43
jsaepuru wrote:
glamdring27 wrote:
As described by various people, 3-fold repetition does not have to be consecutive of course, but recognising a 3-fold repetition spread across 20 moves is quite challenging and far less common in a practical situation than the consecutive move repetitions.
I did have one of the 20-move or so repetitions myself recently when an opponent was trying to win on the clock in a totally drawn bishops of opposite colours ending. We made lots of moves ( < 50 ) and I offered a draw 2 or 3 times and on the final occasion what I thought was to be a draw offer turned out to be a claim on three-fold repetition that I wasn't aware of.
Trying to win a near-50-move endgame does not have to be by clock. If the position is a tablebase draw, the attacker could hope for the defender to blunder.
Threefold repetition means that e. g. if you are trying to attack a fortress, you are allowed two attempts and 50 moves total. 2 attempts because, assuming you retreat to a previously occurring position before trying a different line of attack, you have 3rd occurrence of same position after 2nd attempt.
Note that an incorrect claim of draw by either threefold repetition or 50 move rule is expressly and automatically punished, the way simply offering a draw is not (although it may be punished as "distracting"). By contrast, a false claim of checkmate is NOT penalized in any way.
Yes, it is true there were mistakes to be made in my position, but I had already demonstrated I wasn't going to make the only mistakes possible except for if I moved too fast. It's legitimate for him to carry on of course, I was just relieved I got a draw 20 moves earlier than I expected.
Strangely, on chess.com though a draw offer and a draw claim are the same button so there is no possibility of false claim. I also agree that continually offering a draw is very rude so I only did it evry 10 moves or o after we had repeated a theme to show I knew what I was doing. Theoretically though on chess.com you are better 'offering' a draw every move in that situation in case it turns into a correct claim since I didn't have time to work out if 3-fold repetition had occured (I was scrabbling just to scroll up and see when the last pawn move was for the 50-move rule!)
If I may turn the question slightly, could someone please explain the "arbiter repetition draw" 9.6a?
"the same position has appeared, as in 9.2b, for at least five consecutive alternate moves by each player."
What is meant here? Has anyone had a case of this OTB yet?
As arbiter a lot of situation already happend to me.
The 9.2b differes from 9.2a just because you can claim the draw only when is your turn to play. In the 9.2a the repetition is about to appear but only if you do the right move.
It's very important the rouling and it's important having a little time in the clock. First you have to write the move in the form (in the other moves first you play then you write), but not play the move in the board, then ask to your opponent that it is draw for the 3rd time position apparead for the move you want to do, if he agree sign the score and give it to the arbiter, if he not agree just call the arbiter. He will stop the clock and control. In blitz or rapid you annonce is the 3rd move and hope your opponent is honest, or hope a arbiter is near there and have seen. If is not there call him and tell what's happened, he will take a decision.
9.2b it's the same, but the 3rd repetition already appears at the last move of your opponent who didn't call for the draw, you can proceed with the rouling of 9.2a or just call the arbiter saying the move of your opponent did the 3rd time repetition.
9.6 is for me (as arbiter), personally I think the GM don't really like to ask the draw and this is one of the reason they continue with the repetition. They know well it'is repetition but as they don't like to ask the draw they awaiting the arbiter who stop the play for evident draw, so everybody are happy.
Another time happened with kids, they don't know the rules so as arbiter I have to stop and explain. Anyway to a arbiter friend of me happened also with adults.
I tell another thing, it could be you are wrong and is not a 3rd repetition (yesterday someone did this mistake in the thread), don't worry! Yours request will be a request as draw and the opponent can decide to accept or to continue the game (as usual when you ask a draw).
(sorry fo my poor english)
OK, let me be more specific. What does it mean by "5 consecutive alternate moves by each player"?
When can the arbiter declare the draw?
Correct!
The player from 9... NF6
The arbiter at 15... Nf6
OK, thanks. That rule (9.6a) was the only one I couldn't understand.
Jan 20, 2016
0
#49
batgirl wrote:
Perhaps "Three-fold Replication" might be more accurate?
No, it's Repetition.
The problem is, people are confusion "Repetition of Position" with "Repetition of Moves". Repetition of moves will lead to Repetition of Position, but it's merely a subset. 3-fold Repetition refers to Repetition of Position, NOT Repetition of moves.
Particularly in Endgames, Repetition of Position can occur 3 times many many many moves apart, like maybe White's 59th, 68th, and 83rd moves!
@jorge33: No, the black player would write 9...Nf6 and claim the draw there.
@ThrillerFan: "Replication" would remove some of the ambiguity, as this word choice makes it clearer that the position (rather, the situation including all special move rights) is replicated.
Jan 20, 2016
0
#51
batgirl wrote:
Well the rule doesn't seem to serve its purpose, if I understand the purpose correctly. And if I do understand it, I don't know if it needs to be abolished or just refined.
Sure it has a purpose. Otherwise, the game would never end, especially when facing some of those stupid kids that play a position out to mate no matter how far down they are in material.
Without it, you'd have the following scenario:
W: 57.Qg6+ - I offer you a draw
B: 57...Kh8
W: 58.Qh6+ - I offer you a draw
B: 58...Kg8
W: 59.Qg6+ - I offer you a draw
B: 59...Kh8
W: 60.Qh6+ - I offer you a draw
B: 60...Kg8
W: 61.Qg6+ - I offer you a draw
B: 61...Kh8
W: 62.Qh6+ - I offer you a draw
B: 62...Kg8 (Time is 5:40pm, White has 35 seconds, Black has 14 seconds, 5-second delay)
W: 63.Qg6+ - I offer you a draw
B: 63...Kh8
W: 64.Qh6+ - I offer you a draw
B: 64...Kg8
...
W: 379.Qg6+ - I offer you a draw
B: 379...Kh8 - (Black wets himself)
W: 380.Qh6+ - I offer you a draw
...
B: 644...Kh8
W: 645.Qg6+ - I offer you a draw (White poops himself)
B: 645...Kh8
...
W: 5398.Qh6+ - I offer you a draw (12:43am - Crowd has their noses covered wondering when the next round will start)
B: 5398...Kg8
Now you see why the rule is needed!
Jan 20, 2016
0
#52
ThrillerFan wrote:
batgirl wrote:
Well the rule doesn't seem to serve its purpose, if I understand the purpose correctly. And if I do understand it, I don't know if it needs to be abolished or just refined.
Sure it has a purpose.
Now you see why the rule is needed!
Of course it has a purpose. The question is whether the rule as it stands serves that purpose completely.
Jan 20, 2016
0
#53
ThrillerFan wrote:
batgirl wrote:
Perhaps "Three-fold Replication" might be more accurate?
No, it's Repetition.
The problem is, people are confusion "Repetition of Position" with "Repetition of Moves". Repetition of moves will lead to Repetition of Position, but it's merely a subset. 3-fold Repetition refers to Repetition of Position, NOT Repetition of moves.
Particularly in Endgames, Repetition of Position can occur 3 times many many many moves apart, like maybe White's 59th, 68th, and 83rd moves!
But notice if we take it literally:
The first repetition is the 2nd occurrence.
The second repetition is the 3rd occurrence, and you can claim a draw.
The third repetition doesn't (usually) happen at all.
As described by various people, 3-fold repetition does not have to be consecutive of course, but recognising a 3-fold repetition spread across 20 moves is quite challenging and far less common in a practical situation than the consecutive move repetitions.
I did have one of the 20-move or so repetitions myself recently when an opponent was trying to win on the clock in a totally drawn bishops of opposite colours ending. We made lots of moves ( < 50 ) and I offered a draw 2 or 3 times and on the final occasion what I thought was to be a draw offer turned out to be a claim on three-fold repetition that I wasn't aware of.
Trying to win a near-50-move endgame does not have to be by clock. If the position is a tablebase draw, the attacker could hope for the defender to blunder.
Threefold repetition means that e. g. if you are trying to attack a fortress, you are allowed two attempts and 50 moves total. 2 attempts because, assuming you retreat to a previously occurring position before trying a different line of attack, you have 3rd occurrence of same position after 2nd attempt.
Note that an incorrect claim of draw by either threefold repetition or 50 move rule is expressly and automatically punished, the way simply offering a draw is not (although it may be punished as "distracting"). By contrast, a false claim of checkmate is NOT penalized in any way.