Clearly Mr. Doan has different experiences than I do. I once had a GM flag on move 39 of a 40/90, SD/30;+30 time control because he had written a move twice and though he was on move 41. Many players in my events don’t have scoresheets as reliable as that GM I would never accept that a scoresheet represents the truth of the game score.
Alex Relyea
If the condition of the scoresheet(s) is so poor that you cannot tell if a pawn has moved or a piece captured since the first position being claimed as having repeated, then will the scoresheet(s) be complete enough to verify a three-move repetition claim? Unless the TD has witnessed the repetitions (or there is a reliable unbiased witness) the scoresheet is what is used to validate the claim.
In the hypothetical, the scoresheets matched. Also, the point is that you can reject if the claimant’s scoresheet shows a recent capture or pawn move. I’m certainly not saying that you can accept if the claimant’s scoresheet seems to be OK.
Of course, but this doesn’t go beyond my first example.
My second example was the same, but with no x in Ng4. Some players don’t bother to write the x for a capture:
Now it may look like a repetition, but how do you know that 42 … Ng4 – or, for that matter, 43. Re2 or 43 … Nf6 – wasn’t a capture?
That was my point – you have to dig a little deeper sometimes. I hope you don’t disagree with that.
Bill Smythe
So you used 200 odd words to tell us that “not everyone notates captures”.
I was just reinforcing the point (that I think we all agree on) that ruling on a triple occurrence claim using only the scoresheet(s) can be a tricky proposition.
Bill Smythe
Hey, we could add another several hundred unnecessary words to the rulebook!
It would be nice if you wouldn’t be so condescending all the time.
This is what I used at the recent St. Louis Rapid and Blitz and Sinquefield Cup, github.com/Dedekind125/chess-cl … tag/v0.2.1
Thanks a bunch Chris! Something like this is exactly what I was looking for!
Still, if a game is being played with paper scoresheets and not online, would it always be advisable to play the game through from the start? That could take a lot of time.
Bill Smythe
I think the best answer is ‘it depends on the situation’.
Consider a situation where both players are in time trouble and only recording check marks on their scoresheets. If one of them makes a claim for three-fold repetition, there’s insufficient information to verify the claim. Maybe there’s a reliable unbiased witness?
And before someone says, “Oh, that’ll never happen”, I did have a high rated player (over 1900) make such a claim once, with no witness to the supposed repetitions.
If both players are in time trouble then it was probably a blow when, per 14C6, two minutes were added to the opponent’s clock after rejecting the claim.
I think the event (in around 1990) may have preceded that rule, but the players did agree to a draw shortly after the rejected claim.
If it’s even possible. I was once tasked with inputting scores from the submitted scoresheets at the National Open. Probably 1/2 were pretty much hopeless. And these were adults, not 8 year olds.
Bill’s a big boy. A big boy who can (as in this case) often be rather pedantic.
I’ve know Bill Smythe since 1967, and he can take as well as he can give.
And be pedantic. 
Side note - man you guys are OLD!
Hopefully, someone will be able to say that to you some day, Allen.
I just turned 72, but my hips feel a lot older than that most days. :sigh:
Shhhh! That was supposed to be a secret.
Bill Smythe