Another 3-fold question

Running Chess Tournaments
41

I agree that the issue needs to be clarified. Regardless of what the authors of the rule book intended, it is clear that not all TDs, after reading the rule as it is currently worded, would interpret it the same way.

After thinking about it, I am convinced that the rule should say “. . . the position is considered the same if pieces of the same kind and color occupy the same squares and if the possible current and future moves of all the pieces are the same, including the right to castle and to capture en passant.”

The argument for this is that the purpose of the 3-fold and 50-move draw rules is to resolve cases in which a position is unwinnable by either player, but one or both players are unwilling to acknowledge this by agreeing to a draw. The reason for requiring a 3-fold (rather than a 2-fold) repeat of a board position is that a player might inadvertantly make a move without realizing that his opponent could then force him to move back (to escape check, to defend a piece, etc.). But after the 2-fold repeat, he shouldn’t inadvertently make this mistake again, so if the position occurs a third time, that is good evidence that the position is genuinely inescapable. But this argument is valid only if the board positions are really the same, not just in terms of positions of pieces, but also in terms of ways in which the game can subsequently proceed. And that requires considering all possible subsequent moves - not just those that can be made immediately.

Bob

42

Most of the posts in this thread have been dancing around the main issue, but have not really faced it head-on. Let’s sit back for a moment and look at the bigger picture.

Consider the following position, with white to move, and with black’s king and rook never having moved:

I hope everybody agrees this is a (more or less) practical position, not a hypothetical monster.

It would be extremely logical here for white to play 21. Qa8+ Ke7 22. Qa3+ Ke8. This sequence removes black’s castling possibilities while forcing black’s king to return to the bank rank where it hems in the rook.

The position (of the pieces) is the same, before and after this two-move sequence. Yet I’m sure both players would agree the “look and feel” of the two positions is VERY different.

White, after executing the above maneuver, will now probably play for a win – he is, after all, two pawns up, with a far more comfortable position. It would be absurd, for 3-fold occurrence purposes, to consider the two positions to be the same.

We should really be thinking about the situation, not just the position. “Situation” could be defined as a combination of (a) the physical position of the pieces, (b) whose move it is, and (c) the present and future possible moves of both players.

It is a source of concern to me that, in this thread, some of the nation’s best TDs are of the opinion that only the immediate possible moves, and not future possible moves, should be taken into account in determining whether there has been a 3-fold occurrence. This outlook, in my view, is just plain WRONG, and totally contrary to the spirit and purpose of the rule.

Yet, I’ll have to admit that the USCF rule, as currently worded, is deficient in implementing this spirit and purpose. FIDE’s version (as Luis Salinas points out) does a far better job, and expresses the intent, I’m sure, of both FIDE and USCF. One poster hits the nail on the head:

Actually, the above suggestion could be further improved by changing the final clause to “including the possibility of castling or capturing en passant”, thus removing the contentious and emotionally charged phrase “the right to”.

Bill Smythe

43

I think you’re overstating the case. 14C says that the three repeated positions are “… considered the same if pieces of the same kind and color occupy the same squares, and if the possible moves of all the pieces are the same, including the right to castle or capture a pawn en passant.” The only question seems to whether “lost the right to castle” means the same thing as “unable to castle on the move.” I’ve gone both ways on this, and it does deserve a footnote in some future version of USCF or FIDE rules, but I’ve now come around to concluding that it does not – “right to castle” and “ability to castle” are not the same thing, moving the King results in a fundamentally different position, and any repetition count is reset. Any ambiguity in the rules is bad, of course, but since this has come up once in thirty years, it doesn’t strike me as a major problem.

44

It appears, then, that you have advanced from being uncertain to being in agreement with me, that “right to castle” involves possible future moves, and was the intention of the rule all along.

I do agree that, in practice, the difference is unimportant 99% of the time. Still, things ought to be tightened up a bit for that remaining 1%.

Bill Smythe

45

That’s correct. I now believe that there should be (and implicitly is) a distinction between “right to castle” and “ability to castle.”

46

I’m glad you’re on board here. Perhaps Joe Lux and Bob McAdams will soon also join us (although they haven’t contributed additionally to this thread in the past couple of days).

There remain a couple of legitimate issues on the “right to castle” side of the equation. Check out the thread “Castlemate contest” in the All Things Chess forum. There’s some fun over there, as well as some food for thought:

http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=13803

Bill Smythe

47

The rulebook is large enough then to add more about this abscurity.

All the best, Joe

48

Here’s an update on the question I raised about “right to castle”. First I contacted Tim Just about this as he was the author of the most recent rule book. He said that he cut and paste the rule from the previous version authored by Bill Goichberg.

Since I was one of the TDs at the World Open, I took the opportunity to discuss this rule with Bill there. Bill said that removing the permanent “right to castle” was making progress. The game I quoted on the initial post on this topic shows that between the first two occurrences, white accomplished this, making it a different position.

I’m willing to accept that I erred when I called the 1984 game a draw. One thing the responses on this topic show, is that I was not the only NTD who was not certain of how to rule (I was a SrTD in 1984).

I also took the time to ask Bill a related question. What if a player who still has the permanent “right to castle” is in check and the only legal way out of check is a king move? Has that player already lost the right before he moves his king because a king move is required, or, does he lose the permanent right as an aftermath of the king move? Bill’s response was that this is “less clear”. I’m leaning towards the right having been lost after the king moves. While these situations may be rare occurrences, I would prefer to see the director not have to guess at the proper rulings.

I plan to send a proposal to the rules committee to modify the wording of this rule to make it less ambiguous. There should be no room to interpret this rule as anything other than intended.

49

I’m not quite sure what you mean. The only way this could come up would be if on the first repetition the King was in check and had not yet moved, then after the King moves it returns to its original square twice more. The player hasn’t lost the right to castle until after he moves the King. The fact that it’s a forced move is irrelevant. (He could resign or lose on time first, and still have the “right” to castle.) If you want an analogy, the fact that there’s a forced mate on the board does not mean that the TD gets to adjudicate it. The three positions are not identical, and the claim would have to be rejected.

50

rfeditor wrote:

Are you sure about this? How does one have the right to castle after he loses on time or resigns? Don’t both of these end the game first? If he does castle, it would be considered post game analysis.

Does one have the right to castle at any point after they are in a position in which the only legal move to get out of check is a king move?

51

Yes.
They make an illegal move not effecting the right to castle and their opponent does not notice before 10 more moves have been played.

52

This is a response that initially sounds silly and contrived but, upon further review, turns out to be on topic and to the point.

53

The player has the “right to castle” until he moves the King. If the game ends before this happens, he never “loses” the right to castle, but it never happens because the game is over. Your other scenario was interesting, but frankly I think this one is frivolous. The rule seems clear enough to me: the “right to castle” is lost when the King moves, not when a King move is forced. Just as the game is lost when a player is checkmated, not when there is a mate in 1 (or 2, 3, or 4) on the board.

54

I essentially said in my post on May 19th that this is how I think the rule should work. And perhaps this is how it was intended to work. But it is clear from this thread that this is not how all TDs will interpret the rule, as it is currently worded. So the wording needs to be clarified.

Bob

55

Oops, you’re right – you were on board all along. My apologies.

I also agree that the wording of the USCF rule needs clarification.

Please take a look at the new Graduate Course thread – thanks!

Bill Smythe