Threefold repetition rule and fifty-move-rule not as in OTB and beyond

Sort:
Martin_Stahl
danielbaechli wrote:

I put this under Help & Support because for me as I look at it, something is wrong.

For me, online chess should be as close to OTB as possible. But for the threefold repetition rule, this is not the case. In OTB when a threefold repetition arises, basically there is a draw on a claim, play continues if there is no claim. But in chess.com after threefold repetition, the game is ended automatically with a draw!

The automatic ending is from my point of view not only wrong, as it does not exist in OTB but also bad. For example, when I have a winning position and my opponent makes a move which causes a threefold repetition. chess.com will automatically draw that game. But in OTB, of course, I would never claim the draw! I am not sure if you realize how bad this automatic draw is to chess!

The other way around also applies. My opponent is in a losing position, and I make a move which results in a threefold repetition. My opponent gets the draw automatically. In OTB he must be aware of the threefold repetition, is not allowed to ask anybody if the case (!) and if he or she misses it, I get away and can still win the game!

The same is to the say for the fifty-move-rule except that it is not happening often, that one has a winning position after fifty moves without capture or pawn move. But the same applies, the automatic draw that chess.com has implemented is wrong when one assumes it should be as close as possible to OTB and as such to the FIDE rules.

And beyond, because chess.com automatically draws after threefold repetition and the fifty-move-rule, the fivefold repetition rule and seventy-five-move rule, introduced six years ago, can never be applied. According to FIDE rules, for the first two, there should be a draw only on a claim, after the last two, there should be an automatic draw.

...But if you want to be as close to the FIDE rules, which is my expectation for a chess platform, the current implementation is wrong.

...

 

The site is closest in implementation to US Chess rules. Insufficient Material draws are the most different from FIDE and is a slightly modified version of the US Chess implementation.

 

Regarding the draws by triple repetition and 50-move, it was a required claim for a very long time. I don't know all the specifics for the change but a couple of things likely led to it.

 

  • To decrease the number of support tickets asking why it wasn't auto-claimed.  
  • The fact that in an online platform there is no way to stop the clocks and involve an arbiter. It was really hard to correctly claim draws, especially on situations where time was low. OTB it's simple to do that.

There are other things that don't align with FIDE. For example, you can't play premoves OTB. There are some things that fit better in online play, some due to implementation and due to complexity.

Martin_Stahl

My bringing in the comment about insufficient material was in direct response to your statements "For me, online chess should be as close to OTB as possible" and "But the same applies, the automatic draw that chess.com has implemented is wrong when one assumes it should be as close as possible to OTB and as such to the FIDE rules."

 

There are no arbiters so the site can't directly hew to all FIDE/US Chess rules and in some cases the rule from one federation is easier to implement programtically, though there may even be edge cases were that implementation fails.

 

The simple fact is, there is no way to stop clocks and call arbiters to rule on claims, so there isn't a good way to implement a pre-claim option and give the drawing move to meet the condition. Add to that the idea of premoves, clicking draw after the move doesn't always work (the way it used to be implemented).

 

The online format requires some compromise in rule adherence and even different federations have some differing rules. Again, the insufficient material rule; the US Chess variation makes the most sense, in my opinion, but the FIDE one works well with arbiters in place where they don't have to make any judgement calls.

goommba88

daniel/ the moderators/ and in fact the owners of the site, have more than once ,stated that their intention is not to have an exact 

interpretation of FIDE rules regarding play on the site. 
If it upsets you this much i would suggest you try to play on some other sites.
later dudes 
goommba88
 
Martin_Stahl
danielbaechli wrote:

...USCF or the FIDE rules are the same here, and it does not matter if you implement the USCF or the FIDE rules. So this does not complicate things.

 

Sorry, I wasn't precise. I was talking about insufficient material on timeout. The rules across federations are fundamentally different and the site has implemented a variation of the US Chess rules.

Martin_Stahl
danielbaechli wrote:
goommba88 wrote:

daniel/ the moderators/ and in fact the owners of the site, have more than once ,stated that their intention is not to have an exact 

interpretation of FIDE rules regarding play on the site. 
If it upsets you this much i would suggest you try to play on some other sites.
later dudes 
goommba88
 

Thanks for your hint, no problem with that. I have stated several times that the moderators are free to implement what they want. I am however giving feedback as a user and taking a lot of time to put this correctly. The forums are per my understanding for that, for what is a chess platform which doesn't listen to the users?

 

The site does listen to the users but even there there are conflict in what people want to see.

 

The site has changed a few of their implementations over the years, since the site founding in 2007, and solicited feedback on many things and based decisions on direct feedback of tickets and forum posts.

Martin_Stahl
danielbaechli wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:

My bringing in the comment about insufficient material was in direct response to your statements "For me, online chess should be as close to OTB as possible" and "But the same applies, the automatic draw that chess.com has implemented is wrong when one assumes it should be as close as possible to OTB and as such to the FIDE rules."

 

There are no arbiters so the site can't directly hew to all FIDE/US Chess rules and in some cases the rule from one federation is easier to implement programtically, though there may even be edge cases were that implementation fails.

 

The simple fact is, there is no way to stop clocks and call arbiters to rule on claims, so there isn't a good way to implement a pre-claim option and give the drawing move to meet the condition. Add to that the idea of premoves, clicking draw after the move doesn't always work (the way it used to be implemented).

 

The online format requires some compromise in rule adherence and even different federations have some differing rules. Again, the insufficient material rule; the US Chess variation makes the most sense, in my opinion, but the FIDE one works well with arbiters in place where they don't have to make any judgement calls.

One second, you are right, in some situation arbiters are required. The rule 14D, for example, sometimes requires an arbiter for a ruling if the position is a dead position or not, the computer cannot always decide (no perfect and fast enough algorithm for detection).

But the computer can detect threefold repetition and fifty-move rule and can play the arbiter here, that is my understanding, and I am not talking generally from the beginning (too difficult for me!), just for these two rules.

For making a move leading to the threefold repetition and claiming the draw, one could have a button like "Move and claim threefold" or something like that. I think this is doable. If one is using the premove features (series of premoves), during such a series draw claims should be disallowed (for simplification).

 

While it is technically possible, if you only have seconds on the clock, it would be very hard to do in practice.

 

I'm going to make a guess and the site will not revert the auto-claim code on triple repetition or the 50 move rule.