Sealed move during threefold repetition sequence

[E Michael White]

There are anomalies in the sealed move laws, probably as a result of being grafted onto the main laws without considering interactions.

[Alex Holowczak]

There are anomalies in the sealed move laws, probably as a result of being grafted onto the main laws without considering interactions.

Probably more the fact that no one in the world uses them anymore. That's probably even true in England, given that leagues that still have them tend to have written their own adjournment rules into their league rules.

[E Michael White]

There are anomalies in the sealed move laws, probably as a result of being grafted onto the main laws without considering interactions.

Probably more the fact that no one in the world uses them anymore. That's probably even true in England, given that leagues that still have them tend to have written their own adjournment rules into their league rules.

Nope. They've been there for years.

[Alex Holowczak]

There are anomalies in the sealed move laws, probably as a result of being grafted onto the main laws without considering interactions.

Probably more the fact that no one in the world uses them anymore. That's probably even true in England, given that leagues that still have them tend to have written their own adjournment rules into their league rules.

Nope. They've been there for years.

More than 20? I think no one has really considered the adjournment rules very much since the world moved on from them.

[Roger Lancaster]

That's probably even true in England, given that leagues that still have them tend to have written their own adjournment rules into their league rules.

Probably true but, unfortunately, leagues don't necessarily have adjournment rules covering this particular point!

[Alex Holowczak]

That's probably even true in England, given that leagues that still have them tend to have written their own adjournment rules into their league rules.

Probably true but, unfortunately, leagues don't necessarily have adjournment rules covering this particular point!

My heart bleeds for them. Apologies for this sympathy bypass, but I find it hard to motivate myself to provide anything constructive in this sort of situation, given the means are clearly available to take the problem away altogether, but the league/clubs in its/their lack of wisdom chooses not to embrace those means, and its players continue to play in it regardless.

FWIW I've had an e-mail from someone at my club hinting at a kerfuffle involving a guillotine finish despite digital clocks being used; my club's team chooses the guillotine rather than the increment. I had a similar sympathy bypass in response to that e-mail, so I am at least being consistent in this regard.

[Michael Flatt]

Either one or both players insisted on using the antiquated time control with adjournment (and the option of an adjudication) at the end of the first playing session.

The league in which this particular game is played actually permits two other choices at the start of play in which the game could be completed in a single session: either all moves in a fixed time (80 mins each), or Fischer timings (70 mins plus 10 secs/move).

Over several years, many players have attempted to eliminate the use of adjournments and adjudications from the league (which is under the control of the county association) but have never managed to muster a sufficient majority when voted upon at the AGM.

Given that neither player has found it necessary to raise any dispute, one has to assume that they will amicably conclude their game without the assistance of a third party.

[Ian Thompson]

Either one or both players insisted on using the antiquated time control with adjournment (and the option of an adjudication) at the end of the first playing session.

If it's the league I suspect it is, that may not be true. It could be adjudication as a result of the rule which says "If neither player specifies a game finish method, the game shall be subject to adjudication."

[Roger Lancaster]

I can understand others having lack of sympathy with adjournments but, with due respect to all concerned, I feel that's not really the point. Someone might equally plausibly express lack of sympathy with, for example, games conducted without attendant arbiters but that's no reason to avoid reaching decisions as to how FIDE Laws should be interpreted in such games.

As to the situation I outlined at the start of this thread, my own interpretation would be that Law 9.2.1 et seq applies (since there is no indication otherwise) to all moves including sealed moves. However, there's a seeming paradox in having to announce one's sealed move which is why I sought the opinions of those better-qualified than myself.

[David Sedgwick]

I think you're right that a sealed move is a completed move, but only when the player sealing has stopped his clock. Until he's stopped the clock he has the right to change his sealed move.

If you were required to seal a move and you wanted to claim a draw by repetition with your next move you'd have to write the move down on your scoresheet, declare your intention to make the move and claim the draw (just like you would if you weren't sealing). If you were wrong, you'd have to seal the declared move and your opponent would know what it was.

If you wanted to claim a draw by repetition and you completed the sealed move procedure, including stopping the clock, then you would have lost the right to claim.

I agree completely with this.

However, there's a seeming paradox in having to announce one's sealed move which is why I sought the opinions of those better-qualified than myself.

That is a little unfortunate, but it is only significant when the claim is incorrect.

[Alex McFarlane]

I too agree with Ian.

A problem might arise if the player sealing the move also wrote 'and I claim a draw by repetition' beside the move.

I would be tempted to accept that as a legitimate claim to be investigated on opening the envelope. It seems to be a legitimate way of making the claim without revealing the sealed move before resumption.

[Roger Lancaster]

My thanks to all who posted on this thread.

[Gareth T Ellis]

Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:40 pm

You are at move 40, the time control was at move 35. The clock says you have ten minutes left. Or is it really twenty five? The display that flips between hours and minutes and minutes and seconds can also be confusing. The clock says 0:21. Is that 21 minutes or 21 seconds? Still it can be home advantage to use digitals when the opposition aren't familiar with them.

Modern digitals display which control period the player is in.

[Gareth T Ellis]

How many leagues still use adjournments ?

[Roger de Coverly]

Modern digitals display which control period the player is in.

How many players know what to look for and where to look?