Claiming threefold repetition/disturbing neighbouring boards

[Jonathan Bryant]

I had three draws by repetition of position at Gatwick last week. One was instantly agreed. Two were amicable but required the intervention of the arbiter since my opponents misunderstood the rule and thought that the exact same moves had to be played three times.

This leads me to two questions.

Firstly, my opponents in the latter two games were both graded in the 170s. One I know for a fact has been playing frequently in tournaments for two decades. Of course if you think - albeit erroneously in this case - that your opponent is making an improper claim it’s entirely appropriate to require an arbiter’s ruling. What puzzles me is how it’s possible to play chess for so long without properly knowing the three-fold rule. It obviously is possible because I’ve had similar experiences with similarly graded people a number of times before.

What I’m wondering is what’s the highest graded person who didn’t know a basic rule of chess (I’m interested in the grade rather than the person’s name).


Secondly, on the first occasion the conversation with my opponent went something like this:-

ME: (after writing down my move), My next move is going to be X which will be a threefold repetition

OPPONENT: (puzzled glance at scoresheet, clearly wanting to play on) ... err, I’m not sure ....

ME: (knowing full well it was definitely x3) ... shall I get an arbiter?


At this point the fellow on the next board gave out a loud an obviously irritated "SHHUSSHHH"

I can understand how he felt to a certain extent. We were about 4 hours into the session so I imagine he was playing on increments and as likely as not in a critical position. I doubt he was aware of the nature of our conversation and doubt he cared either way. What he cared about was that we were talking.

But, then again, how else could I have claimed the game? We were talking as softly as possible. I claimed in the correct way. My opponent - erroneously as it happened but entirely appropriately - said he wasn’t sure and required an arbiter to be called for a ruling.


I don’t really see what we could have done differently - other than me saying nothing to my opponent and just going to get an arbiter straight away (which seems a bit ridiculous) - but I’m wondering if anybody has any suggestions as to how to claim a threefold, or respond to a threefold claim -whilst minimising any possible disruption to neighbouring boards.

[Paul Habershon]

What I’m wondering is what’s the highest graded person who didn’t know a basic rule of chess (I’m interested in the grade rather than the person’s name).

Is it an apocryphal story that Korchnoi thought it was illegal for the rook to pass through 'check' when Q-side castling?

[Kevin Thurlow]

I recall an IM refusing to record the game during a quickplay finish. The rather experienced but cowardly arbiter warned him twice then turned red and walked away!

[Tim Harding]

What I’m wondering is what’s the highest graded person who didn’t know a basic rule of chess (I’m interested in the grade rather than the person’s name).

Is it an apocryphal story that Korchnoi thought it was illegal for the rook to pass through 'check' when Q-side castling?

NOT QUITE right but definitely not apocryphal. It was Averbakh who queried when Purdy castled queenside with b8 under attack.

Korchnoi wanted to castle queenside with his QR under attack and asked the arbiter to confirm it was legal to do so.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

But, then again, how else could I have claimed the game? We were talking as softly as possible. I claimed in the correct way. My opponent - erroneously as it happened but entirely appropriately - said he wasn’t sure and required an arbiter to be called for a ruling.


I don’t really see what we could have done differently - other than me saying nothing to my opponent and just going to get an arbiter straight away (which seems a bit ridiculous) - but I’m wondering if anybody has any suggestions as to how to claim a threefold, or respond to a threefold claim -whilst minimising any possible disruption to neighbouring boards.

You didn't claim the game, you claimed the draw...

I don't think either of you did anything wrong. The other chess player, who had been disturbed, would have been justified in stopping the clocks on his board and claiming he was being distracted. He could have (though how to do this without disturbing other games in progress?) enquired whether your game had finished (I am guessing he thought you had finished and were talking about the game) and if so, if you could please move away and have your conversation away from the games currently in progress. On finding that your game was still in progress, he could have asked that if you needed to talk, to do so away from the games currently in progress. It is a tricky one. I don't think people should loudly go "SHUSSHHH" as that itself is distracting. I tend to gesticulate, rather than loudly go "SHUSSSH". But arguably gesticulating at people to be quiet is also distracting.

The threefold repetition rule is commonly misunderstood, including the correct way to claim (I suspect someone [me, as it turns out] will pop up and claim you didn't quite claim the right way either).

[Peter Shaw]

I thought the Korchnoi case was kingside castling in this game (in the Candidates Final).

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067831.

A few top players seem to have trouble remembering the touch-move rule which I think counts as basic rule!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

9.2 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):

(a) is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
(b) has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

So you should have declared your intended move to the arbiter.

[Tim Harding]

9.2 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):

(a) is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
(b) has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

So you should have declared your intended move to the arbiter.

NO, Mr Kreuzer, that is not precisely correct if by "declare" you mean "say".
Telling the arbiter your intended move verbally is not part of the procedure. In case (b) it's not part of the procedure, aloud or otherwise.
There are two cases:

a) Your intended move will bring about the threefold repetition. You must WRITE it on your scoresheet (NOT declare it to the arbiter) and then you claim verbally to your opponent and the arbiter, showing them that you have written the move, Especially if the arbiter is not close at hand, you may stop the clock. Obviously trying not to disturb adjacent games may be unavoidable to some extent and you have to talk at some stage.

b) the threefold repetition has already occurred after the opponent's move. In this case you do not write down a move but just claim as under a).

The arbiter should then ask the opponent if they agree the draw (since the claim of a draw is equivalent to an offer of a draw).
If they don't the arbiter will go with the players and scoresheets to a quiet board somewhere and play through the game to determine the validity of the claim.

If your opponent makes a claim that you believe is incorrect and you want to play on, just tell the arbiter you don't agree it's a draw. If you are proved right, the game will eventually resume. The opponent must make the move he has written down (in case a) and you get two extra minutes, which IMHO is not enough if the claim was frivolous, i.e. intended to break your concentration or give the opponent some respite.

If you think it's not a threefold repetition but are happy to draw anyway then just say I agree the draw.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Fair enough, Tim (no need for the formal 'Misters' here).

Question: if the claim is correct, has the move that produced the three-fold repetition been played (both in the actual sense and the technical sense) and does it actually get played on the board? Presumably the player who is not making the claim is required to write down the move on his or her scoresheet as well (so that both scoresheets state the same moves). And the game ends at that point with both players agreeing the result (in some cases, both players and the arbiter will sign the scoresheet). The important thing is not to play the move on the board *before* the claim is made and accepted, as that invalidates the claim...

Where in the rules are 'verbals' covered?

[IM Jack Rudd]

The move is considered to have been played whether or not the claim succeeds. (Obviously, this only actually matters when the claim fails.)

[Jonathan Bryant]

I recall an IM refusing to record the game during a quickplay finish

This is a bit different though. That's somebody knowing the rules but refusing to abide by them. That's more being a dick than accidental ignorance.

I'd forgotten the Korchnoi story. Don't think it's apocryphal I'm pretty sure he mentions it in his biography.

It reminds me that when I was started playing a guy in the 140s range (that's old money, of course) told me I couldn't castle long as he had a bishop covering b1.

[Jonathan Bryant]

...

So you should have declared your intended move to the arbiter.

Thing is Chris, regardless of whether you are technically correct or not, in the circumstances I was in - i.e. a typical amateur chess tournament - it was clearly inappropriate to go direct to the arbiter. In my position would you really take that route, i.e. walk off mid-game, without saying anything to your opponent?

One thing I do now that’s perhaps worth mentioning - something that I didn’t before - is say, "Shall I get an arbiter" as soon as there’s a quibble. I’ve learned from experience that there’s rarely anything to be gained by pointing out to people that they don’t understand the rule. It just lengthens the process. That cuts down a bit of the chat at least.

I agree with you - in principle at least - about the loud shushing. I think it reasonable to say in this case that it would have been much more disturbing to most people than the 'offence' complained about. However, to be fair clocks often get banged loudly when folk are in time trouble when they wouldn’t normally dream of doing such a thing - and when you add in the irritation of being 'disturbed' you can understand that somebody might have acted a bit out of character at that point.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I would stop the clock and tell my opponent that I was going to get an arbiter. In my view, you should always be able to do that. In practice, yes, I would say that it was because of a threefold draw claim and then not bother the arbiter if my opponent accepted this. Also, in practice, most threefold repetitions are communicated by body language and draw offers. It is only when one person doesn't realise that the position has been repeated three times that things get tricky. <sigh> I will never forget the time I managed to lose on time with an increment and the computer later pointed out that I had missed a threefold claim a move earlier.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Also, in practice, most threefold repetitions are communicated by body language and draw offers. It is only when one person doesn't realise that the position has been repeated three times that things get tricky. <sigh>

Yes, mostly - although at Gatwick both the players concerned knew that the position had been repeated 3 times - they’d deliberately done it (to gain time) - but hadn’t realised it was still a draw even if you repeat in different ways.

Perhaps I should go straight to the arbiter since this has now happened to me often enough that I can see the signs that it’s on its way. in both cases I expected my opponents might be about to repeat as it was the logical likely follow-up to the moves that they were playing and the way in which they were playing them whilst their body language also showed they weren’t knowingly agreeing to a draw.

It still seems a bit abrupt to me, though. And one time in four that this has happened my opponent accepted that it was actually a draw after all. It would be a bit embarrassing to bring an arbiter back to the board and them say, "Your opponent is claiming a draw by repetition" and he says, "Yes, I know. It is" in reply.

Anyway, agree that most threefold are just agreed by body language. As happened in my other 'draw by repetition game'.

[Alistair Campbell]

Slightly off topic, but wasn't there a story about RDK gaining his final GM norm when he tempted his opponent into trying to claim a draw as his proposed move would have apparently repeated the position for the 2nd time (i.e. it would have been the 3rd time it had appeared) only it was not a proper repetition as it would have been a different player to move? The claim was refused and the claimant had to make what turned out to be a losing move.

How often do contested/accidental 3-fold repetitions occur? Offhand I can remember only 1 of my own games out of c1,000 (although plenty when there has been a mutual repetition). Mind you, I don't play many endings (and unannotated QP finishes make it virtually impossible).

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?