When a player claims a draw by “triple occurrence of position”, It can be quite tricky as a TD to determine if the claim is correct or not. Is there a program available where you can put the game into and it will tell if you if a “triple occurrence of position” has occurred?
Is there some problem with using this one?
Aside from checking castling and en passant rights, what would be tricky? I suspect you even already own it.
It can be a lot trickier than it seems, see some of the examples here: youtube.com/watch?v=00ROKzf … n&index=18
I’m only a C player, but I’ve had to rule on a number of repetition claims, some were dead obvious claims just looking at the scoresheet (mostly upheld but one rejected) but one (at the National HS) was over about 15 moves and I wound up playing it out on a second board. Took me about 3 minutes. That claim was upheld, too.
If the claim is made properly, you have the live board as your reference position.
FWIW, I suspect there are any number of chess engines on things like iPads and iPhones that could be used for playing out a repetition claim. But keep in mind that it makes no difference if some other position repeated 3 times, only the claimed position has to be ruled upon.
I’ve watched that. None of the tricky situations are tricky from the standpoint of replaying the moves on a second board, so long as you know to watch out for who is on move, castling rights, and en passant. The trickiness is in knowing the actual rule, how to make claims, etc.
I have seen other directors get caught out with mistaken rulings when they haven’t taken the time to play out the game on a second board. Trying to use the scoresheet alone might well be tricky.
And that doesn’t begin to discuss some of the really interesting questions about triple occurrence, and about castling being permanently impossible vs temporarily impossible.
About four years ago, GM Ben Finegold started this interesting thread regarding these issues.
In that thread, I posed a related question in this post, along with the following position:
In the above diagram, if it is white’s move, and if neither white’s king nor white’s rook has ever moved, is castling permanently impossible or just temporarily impossible? Please stare at the position for a while until you see what the difficulties are.
I posed two definitions, the purist definition and the practical definition, of castling being permanently impossible:
Purist: Castling is permanently impossible in case there does not exist a sequence of legal moves leading to the player being able to castle.
Practical: Castling is permanently impossible in case either the player’s king and/or the player’s rook has ever moved.
I submit that, in the above diagram, the two definitions yield different answers.
Bill Smythe
I was horrified when a TD working under me ruled on a claim just by looking at the scoresheet. It (also) limits the possibility of appeal since, of course, the TD immediately told the opponent that the claimant has offered a draw. The opponent must not think it is a repetition, or at least not be sure. If the TD, in the process of evaluating the claim, can show the opponent each time the position has occurred, he’ll be satisfied. Alternatively, if the TD can show the claimant only one previous occurrence or none, then he’ll understand that his claim was incorrect. This will also allow the players to make sure that the TD is correct on the situations Mr. Schulte describes above.
I don’t like to be appealed, so I like to make sure both players accept my ruling before I leave the board. When I am appealed, I really don’t like to be overruled. Far better to spend the extra five minutes and know you got it right.
Alex Relyea
With all due respect to those in that conversation, it’s only interesting if you equate the practical impossibility of something with the loss of a right to that something. In your position, White retains the right to castle, given an opportunity to do so legally. That no such opportunity will occur does not, from a rules standpoint, strip White of that right.
I guess that just isn’t as interesting to me as it is to you!
There are situation a where one needs to rule quickly and move on. There are situations where one needs to rule slowly. I agree this is one of the latter.
And the TD art is understanding the difference.
When both scoresheets have something like:
40 Ke6 Rd4
41 Kf6 Nf2g4+
42 Ke6 Ng4f2
43 Ke7 Rd5
44 Ke6 Rd4
I will ask both players if those were the moves played and if they both say yes I will explain that three-fold repetition is a repetition of the position, not of the moves. That generally gets both players agreeing that three-fold repetition occurred and the game is a draw without having to use the scoresheet to replay the entire game (for that matter, without having to actually rule on it since the claim was an offer and the opponent agreed to the offer).
Using both scroresheets and getting confirmations from both players avoids people writing some extra [unplayed] moves on their scoresheets and then claiming a draw.
I’m old enough to remember the Saturday Evening Post, which had a regular column called “So you think you know baseball”, which came up with unusual rule situations and their interpretation. That column was responsible for more than a few changes to the rulebook. I don’t think Bill’s chess hypotheticals are likely to have the same type of rules impact, though.
That’s an example of why there are experience requirements for TD advancement. Watch and learn…
A few years ago, I claimed repetition on move 18 of a game against a titled junior. Since the clock was not a factor, I triple checked my scoresheet before making the claim. My teenage opponent vociferously objected to the claim. Apparently he did not realize that the position on move 10 was identical to that on move 16 and 18. After verifying that both scoresheets seemed identical, the NTD resolved the claim using only mine, without setting up a board. However, that didn’t seem to pacify my opponent.
Michael Aigner
Which is exactly my point. FWIW, I had a very similar issue with a ~40-year-old FM a few years ago. He apparently had never learned that it was the position that needed to be repeated not the moves.
Alex Relyea
It can get tricky to figure out, just from the scoresheet, whether there has been a triple occurrence.
Suppose both players’ scoresheets looks like this:
- Re5 Nxg4
- Re2 Nf6
- Re5 Ng4
- Re2 Nf6
- Re5
– when black claims a triple occurrence based on the position after white’s 46. Re5.
Let’s assume that (1) the players’ scoresheets are accurate and up to date, and (2) there aren’t any “was that the same rook?” or “was that the same knight?” questions, and (3) there are no castling or en passant complications.
Does the scoresheet prove a triple occurrence? No, and in fact there has not been a triple, because after 42. Re5 white had a piece on g4, which was no longer there after 44. Re5 or 46. Re5.
Same scenario, except black’s 42nd is shown as just Ng4 instead of Nxg4. Does the scoresheet now prove a triple? Again, no. Some players don’t use x for capture, they just write Ng4 whether it’s a capture or not.
One would have to examine earlier moves – perhaps much earlier moves – to try to figure out whether white had a piece on g4 when he played 42. Re5.
For that matter, there is also the possibility that 43. Re2 was a capture. This, too, would invalidate the claim.
Even black’s 43 … Nf6 is suspicious. Maybe black’s knight came from h6 instead of f6 to begin with. If so, 43 … Nf6 could have been a capture.
What appears from the scoresheet to be a triple occurrence may not be.
Bill Smythe
I see that a lot, but sometimes it’s weirder than that. I had a player (White) who was just shuffling his King back and forth, and after doing so 3 times, claimed a repetition. He had indeed repeated his side of the position, but the Black position had been different each time, because she was not repeating anything. I had to explain to him that the entire position had to repeat, not just his side of it, and I’m not sure he got it even after that. They agreed to a draw a few moves later anyway.
Regarding the original question, there was an engine that I used (can’t remember now which one) that would, when you asked for an analysis of the whole game (not just a position) would evaluate a position at 0.00 if the position was a repeat of an earlier one. (It generally would show a slight non-zero value for positions which were drawn but not dead positions). However, as has been pointed out, the question of whether some position has been repeated three times is irrelevant—it’s whether the claimed position has been repeated three times. Verifying that is much easier.
As long as we are on this topic, remember that there is a difference between US Chess and FIDE rules.
At the North American Youth in the oldest section there was a G/90;+30 game where the lower-rated player made a three-fold claim. It was a repetition of position, not of moves, and the other player disputed the claim. I took one look at the board and immediately know my ruling but I first took a look at both scoresheets, verified that the position really had occurred three times, and then denied the claim because the claimant had actually played the move on the board instead of simply writing it to make the claim (US Chess has long had a period of time between determining a move and completing it, and allowing claims during that period of time, but that is an innovation of the US). The opponent received two minutes (almost tripling his then available time) and promptly made a move that eliminated any three-fold claims in the immediate future.
In FIDE a three-fold claim based on your move is one time where you are actually allowed to write your move without yet playing it (in fact, it is required to do it that way). US Chess allows claims to be made either by writing the move or by playing it since merely playing it does not actually complete your move and make it your opponent’s turn.
How about the “rule” that if you’ve made 50 moves you can claim a draw. Not 50 moves from both players without a capture or pawn move. Just that you’ve filled in 50 moves on your scoresheet.
Yes, you can easily tell from the scoresheet. If there’s a subsequent capture or pawn move, the position can’t be a repeat.