English Chess Forum

Today, I had to deal with a contested draw by repetition claim on move 181 of the Stewart-Burrows game.

Fortunately, it was on a live board, so I was spared the hassle of watching the players play through it on an adjacent board.

My question to arbiters out there: What's the longest draw by repetition claim you've had to play through in full?

Here's an ancillary question.

What's the largest number of moves apart between the first and last positions of a successfull 3-fold repetition claim from a recorded competetive game

John Hickman wrote:Here's an ancillary question.

What's the largest number of moves apart between the first and last positions of a successfull 3-fold repetition claim from a recorded competetive game

The claimant in the game today claimed that the game would be a draw by repetition after black plays 181...Kf6. This position occurred after black's move 162, 173, and 181. So there's 19 moves as a marker to beat.

I would have thought that a player who hadn't noticed the repetition of position would have noticed the 50-move rule, which might put a lid on a particularly high number of moves as the answer to your question.

My personal record is 10 moves, in the following game:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1483146

My GM opponent hadn't noticed, but fairly half-heartedly contested the claim, as Black should have few difficulties holding the draw in any case. We were using those Monroi devices to record, and I vaguely seem to recall that it was possible to see the position after the three different moves, and confirm it was the same (which I'm sure should not really be possible).

Maxim Devereaux wrote:We were using those Monroi devices to record, and I vaguely seem to recall that it was possible to see the position after the three different moves, and confirm it was the same (which I'm sure should not really be possible).

This is exactly what happened in the game I was watching, if you substitute the Monroi for the DGT board. I'd say this was a good reason to use the DGT board; it's much easier for players to see the claim is correct, without the arbiter doing anything.

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Maxim Devereaux wrote:We were using those Monroi devices to record, and I vaguely seem to recall that it was possible to see the position after the three different moves, and confirm it was the same (which I'm sure should not really be possible).

This is exactly what happened in the game I was watching, if you substitute the Monroi for the DGT board. I'd say this was a good reason to use the DGT board; it's much easier for players to see the claim is correct, without the arbiter doing anything.

How so? And how is this a good reason to use the DGT board? What has using a DGT board got to do with Monroi? DGT boards allow live broadcasts. Is that independent of recording the moves or an add-on to that capability? Surely the players see none of this, as opposed to Monroi where they can (it seems) flick back to earlier positions and check if they have been repeated (I agree that this is bad if it is possible, threefold repetition claims should be done only using sight of the scoresheet, nothing more, at least until everyone is using electronic inputting devices - checking a claim after it is made, sure, but not checking during the game to see if a claim is possible).

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: DGT boards allow live broadcasts. Is that independent of recording the moves or an add-on to that capability?

As far as I am aware, DGT boards operate by sending moves to a local computer. The local computer records the game(s) in pgn format. To handle live transmission, the local pgn file(s) have to be loaded to a server.

So if you have access to the local computer, you can validate a repetition claim. I would have though t only the arbiter can do this. On the Monroi gadget, I think you have diagram mode and scoresheet mode. So you can flip to any move in the game. You would need this in order to be able to correct input errors but it would also enable players to validate repetitions.

Some organisers like the Monroi as they can be easier to set up for live game transmission than DGTs.

Roger de Coverly wrote:As far as I am aware, DGT boards operate by sending moves to a local computer. The local computer records the game(s) in pgn format. To handle live transmission, the local pgn file(s) have to be loaded to a server.

So if you have access to the local computer, you can validate a repetition claim.

I think the computer will do it for you. I had a game about 3 years ago where my opponent made an incorrect claim of a draw by repetition, which the arbiter then incorrectly said was correct. After some discussion we ended up with the arbiter not wanting to play through the whole game again, and me not being prepared to accept a draw by repetition that hadn't happened. My opponent decided to go and see what the computer said. He came straight back to say that it was not reporting a three-fold repetition so he would accept that his claim was incorrect.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: DGT boards allow live broadcasts. Is that independent of recording the moves or an add-on to that capability?

As far as I am aware, DGT boards operate by sending moves to a local computer. The local computer records the game(s) in pgn format. To handle live transmission, the local pgn file(s) have to be loaded to a server.

So if you have access to the local computer, you can validate a repetition claim. I would have though t only the arbiter can do this. On the Monroi gadget, I think you have diagram mode and scoresheet mode. So you can flip to any move in the game. You would need this in order to be able to correct input errors but it would also enable players to validate repetitions.

Some organisers like the Monroi as they can be easier to set up for live game transmission than DGTs.

Roger has explained this correctly. It's possible to just click on the correct move of the game, and see that the diagram still has the same position. (Or not, as the case may be.) The claimant could recall which moves the positions were repeated on. If he couldn't, then we'd have had to play through the game, but it would still have been quicker to do that on the live board.

Alex Holowczak wrote:It's possible to just click on the correct move of the game, and see that the diagram still has the same position.

But paying attention to possible changes in ep capture or castling I would hope.

Alex McFarlane wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:It's possible to just click on the correct move of the game, and see that the diagram still has the same position.

But paying attention to possible changes in ep capture or castling I would hope.

Absolutely. These weren't practical considerations in the position in question though.

Slightly off-topic, but ....

If you're keeping score with paper and pen, and arrive at a situation where the position is being repeated on, say, a three- or four-move cycle - do I take it you're not allowed to make signs on the scoresheet to indicate first occurrence, second occurrence, etc of the repeated position? In other words, do you have to rely entirely on keeping track mentally? This would be pretty difficult, I think, in a game like that cited by Alex at the beginning of this thread.

John Clarke wrote:If you're keeping score with paper and pen, and arrive at a situation where the position is being repeated on, say, a three- or four-move cycle - do I take it you're not allowed to make signs on the scoresheet to indicate first occurrence, second occurrence, etc of the repeated position? In other words, do you have to rely entirely on keeping track mentally? This would be pretty difficult, I think, in a game like that cited by Alex at the beginning of this thread.

I think this clearly constitutes note taking, so it's not allowed. You could do this in a round about, but legal, way if you wanted to. You record your clock time against the move you want to highlight the second time the position occurs (or omit a clock time if it is your normal habit to record clock times against each move).

Ian Thompson wrote:

John Clarke wrote:If you're keeping score with paper and pen, and arrive at a situation where the position is being repeated on, say, a three- or four-move cycle - do I take it you're not allowed to make signs on the scoresheet to indicate first occurrence, second occurrence, etc of the repeated position? In other words, do you have to rely entirely on keeping track mentally? This would be pretty difficult, I think, in a game like that cited by Alex at the beginning of this thread.

I think this clearly constitutes note taking, so it's not allowed. You could do this in a round about, but legal, way if you wanted to. You record your clock time against the move you want to highlight the second time the position occurs (or omit a clock time if it is your normal habit to record clock times against each move).

I disagree with Ian.

12.4 The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offers of a draw, and matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.

Marking the first, second etc. occurrence of a repeated position on the scoresheet would come under the "matters relating to a claim" part of 12.4. In the claim I mentioned, the player marked (shortly after claiming the draw) the move number of the positions that were repeated. This speeded up the process!

I seem to remember that the claimant's opponent also underlined the previous pawn move or capture on his scoresheet. Again, this is allowed because it is a matter relating to a claim - specifically, he knows when his opponent might make a draw claim under the fifty-move rule.

Alex Holowczak wrote: I disagree with Ian.

12.4 The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offers of a draw, and matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.

Marking the first, second etc. occurrence of a repeated position on the scoresheet would come under the "matters relating to a claim" part of 12.4. In the claim I mentioned, the player marked (shortly after claiming the draw) the move number of the positions that were repeated. This speeded up the process!

I seem to remember that the claimant's opponent also underlined the previous pawn move or capture on his scoresheet. Again, this is allowed because it is a matter relating to a claim - specifically, he knows when his opponent might make a draw claim under the fifty-move rule.

Sometimes I make a move, and I'm filled with a sense of déjà vu. Haven't I seen this position before? Wasn't it my opponent's turn to move then as well? And didn't we both have the same castling and en passant rights?

Why yes! Now when was that? I glance back at the scoresheet. There it is, I note with a satisfied press of my pen on the paper. Oh, silly me: I've left a little dot beside the move.

I proceed to write down the move I have just made, briefly pausing afterwards to contemplate whether I remembered to feed the cat that morning and, lost in the thought, I inadvertently rest my pen on the paper. Oh dear, I think, my attention having returned to the game. Not another little mark on scoresheet...

You mean I've been going through this charade for eighteen years and all along it's been legal?