Claiming threefold repetition/disturbing neighbouring boards

[Stewart Reuben]

Ian Thompson >We have a general principle that a player has to make claims while it's his move and loses the right to claim once he's played a move.<

That is incorrect. 9.4 If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3, he loses the right to claim a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3 on that move.

The current law is perfectly reasonable that all the possibilities must be the same. The Law could be written that the positions had to be optically identical only. That would cause considerable confusion, but might be worthwhile.

Ian, Going off and speaking to the arbiter assumes that the two people can communicate adequately quietly.

[Jesper Norgaard]

Ian Thompson >We have a general principle that a player has to make claims while it's his move and loses the right to claim once he's played a move.<

That is incorrect. 9.4 If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3, he loses the right to claim a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3 on that move.

My view is that Ian's observation is correct, the player does lose the right to claim threefold occurrence once he's played a move. That the player touching a piece also loses him the right to claim on that move, does not negate the correctness of Ian´s observation.

The current law is perfectly reasonable that all the possibilities must be the same.

Why? Can you give an argument why it is perfectly reasonable?

I'm looking for something more than just your opinion, which is fine, but it is more concrete if there is an argument.

If I may a counterargument. If you want to determine if a flag is a Danish flag, you can compare it to other Danish flags. Whether you can wave the flag in the wind or not is not relevant to whether it is a Danish flag. For instance a Danish flag on a computer screen demonstrably cannot be waved in the wind, but it is still a Danish flag.

That is why I think it is irrelevant which moves can be played from a position to compare that position to another position.

The Law could be written that the positions had to be optically identical only. That would cause considerable confusion, but might be worthwhile.

One of the reasons is that the simpler rule will also make it simpler to administer. You don't have to think about Castling rights or en passant possibilities to compare positions. It would make life simpler for players, arbiters and software programmers alike.

Are there any downsides?

One downside is that ICC would have to change their online playing programs to not consider castling rights and en passant rights when one player clicks the "Draw" button. It will check first if it is a dead position, then if the opponent has no mating material, then if there may be a 50-move rule claim or a threefold occurrence claim. I don't think that is a good argument for keeping 9.2 as it is. Trying to keep "status quo" is not a good argument in my view.

[Michael Farthing]

The answer to Jesper's question is obvious. The motivation for awarding a draw is only incidentally that the position is repeated. The actual motivation is that neither side is making any progress. If the position has changed (and it clearly is a change) from a state where castling is permissable for one side to a position where it is not then progress has been made. The progress might usually be insignificant, but not always, as Jack has illustrated. It is not for the rules to gainsay the possibility that the change might be material. If the position genuinely can't progress yet another repetition will occur. If chess players cannot cope with the distinction between a position where castling or en passant possibilities have altered they are not up to the game!

Having said all that this discussion is fundamentally pointless.

[Stewart Reuben]

Jesper >Why? Can you give an argument why it is perfectly reasonable?

The initial start position Fritz 13 assesses White as +0.39
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Rg1 Ng4 3 Rh1 Nf6 4 Ng1 Ng8 White is now +0.03
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Rg1 Rg8 3 Rh1 Rh8 4 Ng1 Ng8 White is now +0.36
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Rg1 Ng4 3 Rh1 Nf6 4 Ng1 Ng8 5 Nc3 Nc6 6 Rb1 Nb4 7 Ra1 Nc6 8 Nb1 Nb8 White is now -0.29.
It is perfectly reasonable to assess that the loss of castling rights results in a different position.
It is also reasonable to say that this loss, in terms of the situation happening 3 times, is unimportant and not worth the problem it causes people and machines that cannot cope with the concept.

Michael is correct, this discussion is fundamentally pointless because that Law is not going to be changed in September. It is too late.

[NickFaulks]

Having said all that this discussion is fundamentally pointless.

Sorry, Michael, but you are missing the point. "This discussion" is in fact the entire point.

The repetition rule is unfit for purpose, poorly understood ( to the extent that it can be understood ) and causes much trouble. A perfect solution is not obvious, even if improvements are, and there is no will to do anything about it. The time honoured tactical response is to remove the argument to rarefied heights where obscure issues relating to castling and en passant can be rehashed ad nauseam. If you keep it up long enough, people will forget the real issue which started the discussion.

[Michael Farthing]

It strikes me that compared with LBW it's a doddle

Ah well! I suppose I'm lucky in that I can't remember any instance in my chess playing life where I have been in dispute over it and I'm at a loss to see why it is not fit for purpose.

I suppose in that peculiar game, blitz, there is an issue - but as I've made clear before I don't regard that as worthy of serious tournament. By all means, however, let blitz have its separate laws.

I remember one wonderful occasion, however, when my opponent (an FM) observed me consulting my scoresheet and, worried about the possibility of a claim, promptly moved a pawn to avoid this. The pawn move weakened his position and enabled me to draw.

[NickFaulks]

I suppose in that peculiar game, blitz, there is an issue

And rapid, and late stages of quickplay finish ( which is when repetitions are most likely to occur ).

[Stewart Reuben]

Go and Shogi handle repetition differently.
Players are not allowed to repeat, even if this means they will get the inferior position.
I don't know the rules well enough concerning the possibility of the repetition occurring much later in the game. Probably that is much less likely to happen in either of those games.
That would never be agreed by FIDE because they are correctly fiercely protective of the history of the game. As the late Bob Wade said of the Rules Commission, 'We are custodians of the history of the game and have a sacred duty'.

[Michael Farthing]

In Go the repetition is only forbidden if carried out immediately. This is to avoid a particular situation in which a capturing tile could be immediately recaptured by placing a tile on the site of the previous capture leading to an infinite sequence. Recapture is only prohibited for one move. It is extremely difficult in GO to have a repetition of position at a more distant future point as in essence the number of placed tiles in GO increases throughout the game. It is technically possible, but in reality only if engineered by both sides cooperating to that end.

[Brian Towers]

But what happens if you haven't been keeping your score-sheet up to date, but your opponent has? Do you just write down your proposed move any-old where and advise the arbiter?

Your best bet would be to borrow your opponent's score sheet (it's your turn so your clock will be ticking), bring your score sheet up to date, write the move and make the claim. The score sheets are the property of the organiser so your opponent should agree to you doing this on your time although it would obviously be polite for you to ask him first.

The problem with your suggested approach is that you open the door to an arbiter declining your claim because you can't back it up with your score sheet. If he did so he would likely have this excerpt from Appendix C in mind.

Scoresheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for that purpose. An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player of this requirement.

[Brian Towers]

I haven't had an answer, though. As a player and an arbiter, what do you think is the right procedure? My reading of the regulations is that, even in blitz, the player is supposed to find a writing instrument and a scrap of paper and scribble his next move down, but that seems daft.

As an arbiter (albeit not the one you were addressing) I agree that your interpretation is daft.

There are all sorts of situations where a player may legitimately not be writing the moves down (physical disability, religious beliefs, short of time - QPF, rapid, blitz etc). There is no reason why he should suddenly be under such an obligation. To make the claim it is enough to verbalise his intent to me. If there is a written record it is, of course, much easier for me to verify his claim. In the absence of a written record there are two obvious ways. If I've been watching the game and paying attention then I can verify it without further ado. Similarly if the opponent agrees.

I am not alone in this interpretation. Some time ago in a rapid tournament a player on a nearby board claimed a draw by 3 fold repetition and the FIDE international arbiter was happy to award the draw after his opponent confirmed the repetition and in the absence of any writing materials whatsoever.