Draw Claims - Is This Arbiter's Explanation Correct?

[Ian Thompson]

The January 2023 ECU Magazine contains an article on the correct way to claim draws by repetition (and by 50 moves without pawn moves or captures) on page 28.

The author quotes the relevant rules and then cites two instances where he had to reject claims because the player didn't follow the correct procedure. The second example seems dubious to me, and, at the very least, insufficient information has been provided to determine whether or not the arbiter was correct.

The author says:

"According to article 9.4, if the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3, he/she loses the right to claim a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3 on that move."

and then says that because of that rule:

"[The player] didn’t make [the move], but when I arrived at the board, he picked up his knight and showed me that he’s about to make this move and it will be a [three-fold repetition] after this. I had to decline both claims because of their actions."

The explanation doesn't say whether or not the player had, or had not, written the intended move on his scoresheet or had, or had not, stopped the clock.

It seems to me that if the player had written the move on his scoresheet and stopped the clock then the arbiter is clearly wrong. The player has followed the correct procedure for claiming a draw and the game is suspended so Article 4.3 doesn't apply.

Even if the player had both failed to write the move on his scoresheet and chosen not to stop the clock, the game is still suspended while the arbiter is dealing with the claim so Article 4.3 doesn't apply. In that case the arbiter should reject the claim because the intended move has not been written on the scoresheet, but not require the player to move the knight that he picked up after the arbiter arrived at the board. The player would still be able to make a valid claim on that move by writing the move down and reclaiming.

What do other people think?

[Roger de Coverly]

The author says:

"According to article 9.4, if the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3, he/she loses the right to claim a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3 on that move."

and then says that because of that rule:

"[The player] didn’t make [the move], but when I arrived at the board, he picked up his knight and showed me that he’s about to make this move and it will be a [three-fold repetition] after this. I had to decline both claims because of their actions."

The explanation doesn't say whether or not the player had, or had not, written the intended move on his scoresheet or had, or had not, stopped the clock.

It seems to me that if the player had written the move on his scoresheet and stopped the clock then the arbiter is clearly wrong. The player has followed the correct procedure for claiming a draw and the game is suspended so Article 4.3 doesn't apply.

That's pedantry that gives arbiters a bad name. It should be enough to demonstrate an intention to play the move repeating the position for the third time.

[Mike Gunn]

Once, when playing at Hastings I had a draw by repetition claim rejected on similar grounds. This was particularly embarrassing as I am an arbiter! I can't recall which bit of the procedure I omitted, and I agree with Roger but the rules are the rules, I suppose. (I got the draw a couple of moves later when I did follow the correct procedure.)

[Kevin Thurlow]

I've emailed the magazine to ask if the player wrote the move down etc.

In any event, I think FIDE should change the Law to say you can play the move, then pause the clock to claim the draw. That would also be consistent with not writing the move down before you play it. Also if your draw claim is disallowed for some other reason, you have to play the intended move, so why not actually make it? In accepted draw claims, the intended move is included in the published game scores as it is on the score sheet...

I think Laws in general should be written to be helpful!

[Alex McFarlane]

I think FIDE should change the Law to say you can play the move, then pause the clock to claim the draw. That would also be consistent with not writing the move down before you play it.

Remember an opponent is allowed to move before you press your clock.
If the procedure that you suggest was allowed then the opponent could simply make a move and say you had never claimed a draw until after you saw their move (which presumably has removed the repetition). Outcome a dispute where the arbiter has only one player's word against another's.

Writing the move down before playing it also makes it more difficult to deny that you had made the draw offer. Your suggested 'improvement' could lead to a player realising they were wrong and withdrawing/denying they had made the offer and thereby not incur a penalty. Again the arbiter would be asked to believe one player over another with no hard evidence.

The current rule is not perfect but results in fewer problems than your suggestion could lead to.

[NickFaulks]

I was once sitting next to a 4NCL game where the players decided that it was time for their game ( which had been competitive ) to end by repetition. They discussed the procedure and called an arbiter to view their results. He said they had got it wrong, so they played on. Bizarre.

[Wadih Khoury]

I was once sitting next to a 4NCL game where the players decided that it was time for their game ( which had been competitive ) to end by repetition. They discussed the procedure and called an arbiter to view their results. He said they had got it wrong, so they played on. Bizarre.

If both parties want to end the game, isn't it an implied accepted draw offer and then irrespective of whether the procedure was followed, it's a draw? Isn't the procedure there to protect when there is disagreement.

[Roger de Coverly]

If both parties want to end the game, isn't it an implied accepted draw offer and then irrespective of whether the procedure was followed, it's a draw? Isn't the procedure there to protect when there is disagreement.

It occurred to me that when there's a tournament with a "no draws" rule, that arbiters might like excuses to force players to continue.

My personal practice is to offer the draw when the position occurs for the second time. That assumes both players are now willing to split the point.

[NickFaulks]

If both parties want to end the game, isn't it an implied accepted draw offer and then irrespective of whether the procedure was followed, it's a draw?

I did say it was bizarre!

[NickFaulks]

My personal practice is to offer the draw when the position occurs for the second time. That assumes both players are now willing to split the point.

Except when one of them is using the increment to think a bit longer, which is not so uncommon.

[Joseph Conlon]

.....

What do other people think?

I agree with you; while the first case in the article seems a straightforward decline, the second seems bizarre and wrong.

Even ignoring the counter-intuitive aspects, its not what the Laws themselves say: article 4.3 refers to "if the player having the move touches on the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing" and on any account of the circumstances in the article, the player was not touching with intent to move or capture, but rather with intent to make a threefold repetition claim.

So, to me, 9.4 does not apply as the necessary condition in 4.3 is not satisfied.

(I also agree with you about the game being suspended, but I think the above holds irrespective)

[Kevin Thurlow]

I got a reply - apparently the claimant waved at the arbiter, and said he was going to make a move with the knight, and picked it up to show the move. The clock wasn't stopped and the move wasn't written down. The arbiter added, "Maybe it wasn't an entirely precise wording, as English is not my native language."

That seems reasonable to me.

[Ian Thompson]

I got a reply - apparently the claimant waved at the arbiter, and said he was going to make a move with the knight, and picked it up to show the move. The clock wasn't stopped and the move wasn't written down.

The arbiter was correct to reject the draw claim because the move hadn't been written down, but that does seem pretty clear confirmation that the player did not touch a piece "with the intention of moving or capturing" it, as required by Article 4.3. I wonder what he would have done if the move had been written down. I also wonder what he would have done had the player then tried to move a piece other than the knight after having the draw claim rejected.

The arbiter added, "Maybe it wasn't an entirely precise wording, as English is not my native language."

I'd say information essential to understanding what happened was missing given that the article failed to mention the failure to write the move down and suggested it was the touching of the piece that invalidated the claim. Not what you want in an article trying to explain the correct application of the Laws.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

The arbiter was correct to reject the draw claim because the move hadn't been written down, but that does seem pretty clear confirmation that the player did not touch a piece "with the intention of moving or capturing" it, as required by Article 4.3. I wonder what he would have done if the move had been written down. I also wonder what he would have done had the player then tried to move a piece other than the knight after having the draw claim rejected.

Usually in a blotched three fold claim, the best thing the arbiter can do is to say "Under FIDE rules, this was not a correct claim under threefold reptition, however your oppoenent has effectively offered you a draw, do you wish to accept?"

And, if not, they can simply play on.

[Adam Raoof]

The arbiter was correct to reject the draw claim because the move hadn't been written down, but that does seem pretty clear confirmation that the player did not touch a piece "with the intention of moving or capturing" it, as required by Article 4.3. I wonder what he would have done if the move had been written down. I also wonder what he would have done had the player then tried to move a piece other than the knight after having the draw claim rejected.

Usually in a blotched three fold claim, the best thing the arbiter can do is to say "Under FIDE rules, this was not a correct claim under threefold reptition, however your oppoenent has effectively offered you a draw, do you wish to accept?"

And, if not, they can simply play on.

thank God for common sense