claiming a draw?

Hi all,

I'm in an online game that had a threefold repetition, which I would like to claim.  I thought I was reading the faq correctly when it said to make my move and then claim the draw, but it didn't work, and my opponent made another move.  (That is, it treated it as a normal optional draw offer rather than a forced one.)

Here's the game:

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=29827987

and after white moves 40 and 42 and then black's move 45 the position is the same. Did I do something wrong?

im not sure if threefold repetition means

the actual position then three repeats or

the position and two repeats as your game

i think the offer draw button changes to claim draw on either players turn after the required number of repeats

>:)

I didn't look at the game, but as I understand it for the position to be considered repeated 3 times it has to be the same players turn when the position is repeated.  So, if the position is the same but it's your move instead of his, no draw can be enforced by rule.  Might that be what happened?

i looked at your game and that is not threefold repetition.  the same exact position must be reached three times.

OK, I figured it out.  polydiatonic is correct, it has to be the same player's move for the repetitions to count.  Thanks all!  Now I have to finish playing the game!

Yeah it's interesting because the "position" is not really the same if it's a different players move. 

There is an interesting twist on this question...I read about this in a book by (I think) Andy Soltis who's one my favorite "casual" chess authors.  I think the book was called "chess to enjoy".  Anyway he was talking about a conflict at international tournament of some kind. It seems that one of the players claimed a draw because the position on the board had repeated 3 times...all of the conditions being met.  The problem was that in one of the positions repetitions one of the players 2 rooks had switched positions.  So, the claim had to go to some FIDE rules committe to adjuticate whether or not the the position could be considered "identical" since different pieces were occupying the squares.  In the end the claim of the repetition was upheld.