Draw by repetition claims

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
Maxim Devereaux
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:08 pm

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by Maxim Devereaux » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:34 am

David Blower wrote:Gosh! I must be doing all sorts of illegal things at the chess board then!
You certainly are, David, but it may console you to know that you aren't the only offender. I've experienced that even strong players can be guilty of breaking the rule about note-taking:

I recently played against a young Swiss FM, who, after about 7 moves in a Symmetrical English, suddenly realised that allowing the b4 pawn sac I had just played in this particular position was going to mean rather more of an opening advantage for me than would have been the case had he prevented it with ...a5, and sunk into thought for maybe 15 minutes, which he broke in the middle to annotate his previous move with "?!" :-)

I never object to my opponent doing this (on the rare occasions that it happens) because I think it provides an insight into their thought processes, and it is useful to know what your opponent thinks about their position (especially if it isn't obvious from their body language).

I actually lost the game, due to overconfidence and consequent carelessness in a winning endgame, but that's another story.

Peter Shaw
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:22 pm
Location: Wakefield

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by Peter Shaw » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:49 pm

I hate it when people start putting ?'s and !'s on their scoresheet during the game, thought at least your opponent was criticising his own play. The worst case was someone who wrote his first move as "g4!", presumably doing this every game.

I was rather amused once when someone gave a ?? to an opponent who had 'blundered' his queen on move 6, only to find himself mated on move 8 (it was a version of Legall's mate).


Andrew Bak
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:48 am
Location: Bradford
Contact:

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by Andrew Bak » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:37 pm

I've not seen anyone notate their games for years, I used to see it fairly frequently as a junior.

It always just used to make me laugh and give me an insight into what they thought, so I was appreciative of it! I guess very unscrupolous players could pull a dummy by writing ?? next to their move in full awareness that it is in fact a devilish trap they have set!

AustinElliott
Posts: 653
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: North of England
Contact:

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by AustinElliott » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:09 pm

I'm slightly reminded by the discussion of 'notating games' of the story about the famous 1959 Fischer-Tal (first) Bled game, as featured in My 60 Memorable Games. Tal describes in his own Life and Games book how Fischer wrote down the (strong and probably winning) move 22. Rae1. Tal says Fischer wrote the move in 'European' notation (always wondered if this meant algebraic, instead of Fischer's usual English descriptive - anyone know?) then moved the scoresheet so that Tal could see it. Tal continues:
'He's asking for an endorsement', I thought to myself, but how was I to react? To frown was impossible, if I smiled [Fischer] would suspect 'trickery', and so I did the natural thing. I got up and began to walk calmly up and down the stage. I met Petrosian, made some joke to him, and he replied. The 15 year-old Fischer... sat with a confused expression on his face, looking first at the ...spectators... and then at me.

Then he wrote down another move: 22. Qc6+, and after 22. ..Rd7 23 Rae1+ Be7 ...I held on to my extra piece and adjourned the game in a won position. When I later asked FIscher why he hadn't played 22. Rae1 he replied: "Well, you laughed when I wrote it down!"

Lewis Martin
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 11:45 am

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by Lewis Martin » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:14 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Ian Thompson wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: 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.
But it's not a claim. The first and second time the position occurs the mark is an aide mémoire to a possible future claim, which may never happen. Indeed, it may never happen quite deliberately because the player has made the note on his scoresheet to remind himself not to accidentally allow a draw by repetition in a position he's trying to win.
You raise an interesting point in your last sentence. The same argument would apply to the superior side and the fifty move rule. However, indicating that on the scoresheet is virtually standard and indeed was done in the game under discussion. I have to admit that it had never occurred to me to question the practice.
I am using this whole quote since it is relevant to two points I'd like to raise in this discussion. (As well as other posts but I'm not going to post 10 previous posts into 1!)

One game I had, me and my opponent repeated moves until I reached a point where I had to decide whether to complete the next move to make the three-fold repetition. Note, I did not do anything to my scoresheet before this other than writing the moves down. However, at the 'about to claim' point, I was checking mentally, looking at the scoresheet and put some dots indicating where I thought the position had already occurred - i.e. which position I was claiming to be repeated - incidentally my opponent noticed what I was doing and shook his head, looking at me as if I shouldn't be doing it. I then went to the arbiter to check that it was based on reaching the same position three times, and not the fact that I had to depend on my opponent to complete it based on repeated moves - if you understand what I mean.

I played my move and then claimed the draw without pressing the clock (paused later when we went through it), in view of the arbiter. My opponent didn't accept this, so we went and played through the game somewhere else: I then played through it and pointed out the first position, and counted up to three that this happened. My opponent again didn't accept this, and therefore we went to see the head of the organising committee who concurred with me and the arbiter. I believe this was correct however at the time I couldn't remember what the controversy was with regards to writing the actual intended move down before playing it. The World Cup incident between Wang Hao and Dreev(?) comes to mind, hence why I checked with the arbiter and played it in her view. In the end, the draw was the final result, and my opponent was amicable afterwards with regards to the game played though I suspect he still doesn't accept the procedure carried out.

Would this be acceptable in this case?

Second point is what about the case when I 'marked' (I can't remember whether I circled the move number or underlined the move at which the last capture occurred) for the later scenario to check how many moves I had left before my opponent could claim a draw while I was trying to win a knight and bishop endgame. My memory was a little hazy at this procedure (it must have been shown to me about 10 years ago and helped by my intensive concentration, my brain was very numb after this!) - indeed I finally mated my opponent in 46 moves. Was this allowed, as I was not going to claim for the draw, but, in Ian's view/point, to 'motivate' me to play more accurately in the resulting time scramble and thereby trying to prevent my opponent to have the right to claim the draw if I over-stepped the 50-move rule?

Apologies if I've opened a can of worms, but I'm curious.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4175
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:14 pm

Lewis Martin wrote:I played my move and then claimed the draw
This constitutes an invalid claim, because it was your opponent's turn to move when you claimed the draw. (Although he is entitled to accept the claim if he wishes: a draw claim is also a draw offer.) The right way to claim the draw is to write the intended move down and claim based on the position that will arise after it.

Lewis Martin
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 11:45 am

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by Lewis Martin » Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:50 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Lewis Martin wrote:I played my move and then claimed the draw
This constitutes an invalid claim, because it was your opponent's turn to move when you claimed the draw. (Although he is entitled to accept the claim if he wishes: a draw claim is also a draw offer.) The right way to claim the draw is to write the intended move down and claim based on the position that will arise after it.
Ah ok. I did ask the arbiter for clarification on this before I completed my move and she seemed to accept what I did. Oh well, at least I (and Wang Hao) know what to do next time, thanks!

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1974
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by Michael Farthing » Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:40 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Lewis Martin wrote:I played my move and then claimed the draw
This constitutes an invalid claim, because it was your opponent's turn to move when you claimed the draw. (Although he is entitled to accept the claim if he wishes: a draw claim is also a draw offer.) The right way to claim the draw is to write the intended move down and claim based on the position that will arise after it.
Jack, why? I think Lewis said that he claimed the draw after making the move and before pressing the clock. This means that his move was not completed and therefore it was not the opponent's move? [I realise that the documented procedure is as you describe, but the actual sequence of events, to my mind, removes any motivation for objection].

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by Sean Hewitt » Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:40 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:
IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Lewis Martin wrote:I played my move and then claimed the draw
This constitutes an invalid claim, because it was your opponent's turn to move when you claimed the draw. (Although he is entitled to accept the claim if he wishes: a draw claim is also a draw offer.) The right way to claim the draw is to write the intended move down and claim based on the position that will arise after it.
Jack, why? I think Lewis said that he claimed the draw after making the move and before pressing the clock. This means that his move was not completed and therefore it was not the opponent's move? [I realise that the documented procedure is as you describe, but the actual sequence of events, to my mind, removes any motivation for objection].
Because the laws say that in order to claim a draw by repetition the player making the claim must have the move. As soon as you touch a piece you no longer have the move, regardless of whether you have pressed the clock or not.

E Michael White
Posts: 1398
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by E Michael White » Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:30 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:As soon as you touch a piece you no longer have the move,
Are you sure about that?
You have the move until you "make" a move, where "make/made" are as defined as in the rules and are not the same as "completed".

Of course if you touch a piece you no longer normally have the same moves you had before touching it so the situation is different depending on whether the claim is " has appeared" or "about to appear". But there again touching a piece may not change the available moves it depends on the position. Arbiters have work to do on such a claim.

Rule 9.4 prevents a player claiming a 3 move rep draw as soon as he touches a piece but it is not as a result of no longer having the move.
Last edited by E Michael White on Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:41 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1974
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by Michael Farthing » Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:45 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote: Because the laws say that in order to claim a draw by repetition the player making the claim must have the move. As soon as you touch a piece you no longer have the move, regardless of whether you have pressed the clock or not.
I can't actually find any clear definition of 'having the move'. Even the glossary entry is vague. Where does it say that by touching the piece you 'no longer have the move'? This surely cannot be right as it is is quite common in normal play to hesitate between two different destination squares and one can hardly not have the move when the final choice has not been taken! It certainly does say that a move is completed by pressing the clock (usually - there are exceptions), so presumably you are saying that between touching the piece and pressing the clock no one 'has the move'? Surely the reason for the requirement to make the claim while having the move is that it is not distracting the opponent in his move (ie his time).

OK this is all a bit picky, but it would also be a bit picky to evade the draw by repetition on this basis.

E Michael White
Posts: 1398
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by E Michael White » Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:50 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:I can't actually find any clear definition of 'having the move'.
Article 1
FIDE Rules Article 1 - 1.1 wrote:A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’.
Thus White is not said to have the move at the start of the game as his opponent has not moved and as a result "touch move" and J'adoube" are not said in the rules to apply in the initial start position. Some arbiters might be minded to tell you otherwise.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19392
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:59 pm

When FIDE outlawed writing the move down before playing it, they left in the requirement to announce by writing down the claim for three times repetition of position or fifty moves elapsing since the last capture or pawn move.

It would have been logical to put the claim of a draw on the same footing as the offer of a draw, namely that the move is played, the claim made and the clock pressed. In his own time, the opponent can then accept the implicit draw offer, accept the repetition or challenge the claim. There was some strange arbiter logic why this wasn't possible. The practical solution is to offer a draw at the second repetition, although there are some move sequences where the repetition of position has been less than obvious.

Robert Stokes
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:51 pm

Re: Draw by repetition claims

Post by Robert Stokes » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:25 pm

Re: E Michael White's recent post.

Does this really mean that white can make his first move, release the pawn or knight, and then change his mind and play a different move before pressing the clock?

Robert

Post Reply