Why wasn't this a draw via threefold repetition?

  • #81

    whoevers turn it was at that point shows checkmate in 1 turn

  • #82

    no just stalemate 3 fold can be done as may times pointless ill admit to keep it up but can never be forced and should be whites loss anyways for repetitive action more than 5 times that a draw unless the king and queen was forced into the same action my point is that repetitive check is redundant  and should be someones loss more than a forced draw if done more than 3 times

  • #83

    3 fold should not be called a draw unless it is lock into it

  • #84
  • #85
    ramses9721 wrote:

    no just stalemate 3 fold can be done as may times pointless ill admit to keep it up but can never be forced and should be whites loss anyways for repetitive action more than 5 times that a draw unless the king and queen was forced into the same action my point is that repetitive check is redundant  and should be someones loss more than a forced draw if done more than 3 times

    White can keep checking but cannot checkmate in that position.  That's why it's a DRAW.  Repetitive check means the game could go on in perpetuity - no one can win or lose in that position.  The onus is on the player who is "winning" to prevent that from happening.

    And seriously - writing everything in one long, run on sentence makes it very difficult to read even when you attempt to make sense and makes you look like a six year old.  This is a chess forum, not a cell phone chat.  Use complete, coherent sentences and others will be more likely to take you seriously.

  • #86
    klfay1 wrote:
    ramses9721 wrote:

    no just stalemate 3 fold can be done as may times pointless ill admit to keep it up but can never be forced and should be whites loss anyways for repetitive action more than 5 times that a draw unless the king and queen was forced into the same action my point is that repetitive check is redundant  and should be someones loss more than a forced draw if done more than 3 times

    White can keep checking but cannot checkmate in that position.  That's why it's a DRAW.  Repetitive check means the game could go on in perpetuity - no one can win or lose in that position.  The onus is on the player who is "winning" to prevent that from happening.

    And seriously - writing everything in one long, run on sentence makes it very difficult to read even when you attempt to make sense and makes you look like a six year old.  This is a chess forum, not a cell phone chat.  Use complete, coherent sentences and others will be more likely to take you seriously.

    I doubt anyone will take him seriously anyway - he seems to have no idea how to draw a chess game Laughing

  • #87

    I am just surprised with the game fold towards the end, i would say the white's move was more of cowardness rather than a game. Its totally frustating when you play games with such immature playes ....

    It should have been a draw.

  • #88
    xbigboy wrote:

    You can claim a draw after three repetitions by hitting the draw button. Threefold repetition draws are NOT automatic.

    Of course they are automatic.

  • #89
    rrrritvik wrote:
    xbigboy wrote:

    You can claim a draw after three repetitions by hitting the draw button. Threefold repetition draws are NOT automatic.

    Of course they are automatic.

    Of course they are not. Are they automatic OTB?

  • #90

    I do believe that the draw by "50 moves without a capture or a pawn move" is automatic, even OTB.  Do I have that right?

  • #91

    for 50 moves rule, it's not automatic OTB. An arbiter won't step in and declare the game drawn, a player has to. I don't think it's automatic on chess.com either, although that I'm not sure about.

  • #92

    I agree a player has to do, but what about such cases where the game just keeps on moving with no ideology behind... that's quite silly.

  • #93
    vinothbabu wrote:

    I agree a player has to do, but what about such cases where the game just keeps on moving with no ideology behind... that's quite silly.

    On other sites like chesscube, endings which cannot lead to a checkmate are instantly drawn. I think it saves a lot of headache and time for all parties involved.

  • #94
    Knightberry wrote:
    vinothbabu wrote:

    I agree a player has to do, but what about such cases where the game just keeps on moving with no ideology behind... that's quite silly.

    On other sites like chesscube, endings which cannot lead to a checkmate are instantly drawn. I think it saves a lot of headache and time for all parties involved.

    The games that drag on usually have endings that can lead to checkmate, but probably will not:  K+R vs K+R for instance.  In some of my games, my opponents have declined a draw because they have more time left and they are trying to run my clock down.  Most get a surprise when we reach 50 moves and I claim a draw.

    By the way, Chess.com does automatically declare the game drawn when there is insufficient material.

or Join

Online Now