"Threefold" repetition

[petejwatts]

From the FIDE laws of chess. I will be writing more about this shortly, but for the time being folks might like to ponder it - though feel free to comment:

9.2
The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the 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 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.


Positions as in (a) and (b) areconsidered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.
Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured in this manner. When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its castling rights, if any, only after it is moved.

[Petr]

this is from the blitz rules www.chessplayer.com/blitz%20rules.htm:

"To claim a draw by perpetual check, a three-time repetition is necessary with the player counting 1, 2, 3 out loud so as to make it quite clear and easier for the tournament directors to assist. Claimant should stop the clock after the third repetition"

[petejwatts]

Oct 15, 2009 9:22:55 GMT -5 Petr said:

this is from the blitz rules www.chessplayer.com/blitz%20rules.htm:

"To claim a draw by perpetual check, a three-time repetition is necessary with the player counting 1, 2, 3 out loud so as to make it quite clear and easier for the tournament directors to assist. Claimant should stop the clock after the third repetition"

These arent FIDE rules. They are at most USCF rules which differ slightly from FIDE. They maybe, and I suspect they are, simply the rules of the site's organization and not those of any major chess federation.

This is apparent because, as I had intendede to describe in the start of the thread, the law is actually TWO repetitions, not three. 9Three occurrences of the same position, which is two repetitions ). Also, there is no requirenement for the repetition to be by perpetual check - any form of repetition will do. In the light of that, neither player may actually realize the repetitions are going to occur, so it is impossible to call "One" on the first occurence of a position in advance, only on the first repetition (as described) so this is not the correct interpretation of the law. Also even after the first repetition, there may not nbe another one, so a player will be abouncing "One" every now and again just in case it occurs. In any case, if the repetition is forced by perpetual check calling out the repetitions should be usually unnecessary since even the thickest dolt should be able to tell it cant be avoided (only extreme time pressure makes that a possible factor). IF the repetitions arernt forced then one is back with the problem of not knowing in advance if they are going to occur.

Given the distraction to other players, imho no serious rules would require calling our so that an arbiter can hear. In fact, when I talked with Stewart Reuben of FIDE about changes to blitz rules he said that part of the reason for the changes was that blitz tourneys are often played without arbiters (!). A very bad rationale imo, rules should be written assuming they will be enforced - but there you go.