Queen ending, sudden death time scramble with both players under 5 minutes, player A starts a long series of checks. His opponent, player B, has stopped keeping score. B begs for a draw on several occasions, but A rejects each offer. Eventually A plays a different (non-checking) move, and wins on time a few moves later. A few hypothetical scenarios:
No TD happens to be observing the game and there is no immediate ability to force the triple occurrence of a position. Does rule 14C8 allow player B to stop the clocks and summon a TD with “an intention to invoke the 3-fold repetition rule when possible” similar to the analogous rule 14F4 for the 50-move rule?
Player A is still keeping score while B is under 5 minutes. B stops the clocks and claims a draw by repetition with the TD observing (14C8). Can the TD demand a copy of A’s scoresheet (15G) and use it to determine the validity of B’s claim?
Player B stops the clocks and claims a draw by repetition with the TD observing. Both players have stopped keeping score. Based on his observation, the TD thinks the claim is possibly correct, but is less than 100% sure. Should the TD deny the claim on the grounds that upholding a possibly faulty claim would be more harmful than denying a possibly valid claim?
Same as scenario #3, except a witness who for unknown reasons did not speak up when the claim was made, comes forward after the game has ended and says he’s 100% sure that the claim was valid. Can/should the TD invoke 21F1 to change the result from a player A win to a draw? If so, is there a “statute of limitations” for changing the result?
14C8. Sudden death time pressure. In sudden death, a player with less than five minutes remaining may be awarded a draw by triple occurrence of position based on the observation of a director, deputy, or impartial witness(es). A player may stop both clocks to see a director in order to demonstrate the ability to force a triple occurrence of position.
14F4. Director may count moves in sudden death. In sudden death, a player with less than five minutes remaining and a simplified position in which no pawn moves or captures seem likely may stop both clocks, declare to a director an intention to invoke the 50-move rule when possible, and ask for assistance in counting moves. A director who agrees this is appropriate may count moves or use a deputy or a clock with a move counter to do so.
15G. Ownership of scoresheets. The scoresheets of all games in a tournament are the property of the sponsoring organization(s). If the organizer requires that a copy of each game score be submitted by the players, duplicate scoresheets must be provided, and players who fail to submit scoresheets may be penalized.
21F1. Timing of requests. A player with a valid claim or complaint of any type should immediately stop both clocks (5I) and see a director. In most cases, the player who defers such a claim waives the right to make the claim. However, a delayed claim may still be in order if it is based on evidence not previously available, such as the testimony of a witness, or if the situation causing the claim remains in existence.
I suppose, if there is a reasonable likelihood of a draw claim in the near future, a player could stop the clocks and request that a TD begin to observe. By the same token, though, the TD ought to have the right to decline the request.
I don’t like the idea of a player’s scoresheet being used against him. I guess The TD could deny the claim, while staying by the board in case of future claims.
That’s probably a good idea. The TD then might also want to stick around and watch the game for a while.
As a followup: If I understand 14F4 correctly, the claimant who asks the TD to start counting need not ask again if/when the count reaches 50. The TD can just step in and declare the game drawn when the count reaches 50. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
Is the same true of 3-fold repetition claims under 14C8? That is, can the claimant ask the observing TD to declare the game drawn immediately upon the triple occurrence of any position? Or does the claimant still need to stop the clocks and state his claim at the triple occurrence of the current position (as in normal circumstances)?
That is correct. Once the TD (or an assistant) has started counting, neither player has the right to know the count until 50 moves have been made. Please refer to rule 14F4c.
I fundamentally reject Bill Smythe’s notion that a player can request a TD to watch for a triple occurrence of position in a manner similar to the provision of rule 14F4 for a 50-move draw claim. The point is that counting moves is a purely mechanical task; in fact, rule 14F4f allows the director to place a clock with a move counter enabled on the game to perform the task of counting.
Determination of a triple occurrence of position is almost never such a mechanical task, especially in time pressure. It is my belief that rule 14C8 is only intended to cover thoroughly obvious instances, such as “perpetual check.” Note that rule 14C8 explicitly allows a player in time pressure to stop both clocks in order to demonstrate the ability to force triple occurrence of position (again, typically by “perpetual check”). I believe it is unjustifiably expansionary to interpret rule 14C8 as giving a player the right to request a director to observe the game and detect a triple occurrence of the current position, much less of any position.
However, I would likely just give the player a warning about stopping the clock without a claim if I can tell (s)he is truly trying to get the attention of a TD (1C2, director discretion) and not stalling for time or being a punk.
Claiming a draw within 14C8 (“…observation…”) is OK, but the player should know it’s a crap shoot and might hand more time to the opponent. If player A continued to keep score and the TD can confirm/deny based on that scoresheet, I’d say that is preferable over observation. Preferences aside, nothing disallows that action.
If the rule says that a potential triple occurrence shouldn’t be handled in a manner similar to a potential 50-move situation, then the rule ought to be changed. Either way, you’re looking at a probable future claim, not a claim that applies to the current position.
Even though “counting moves is a purely mechanical task”, the two situations are similar enough so that the TD should be allowed to handle it similarly.
There is a minor inconsistency here that bothers me just slightly. A “normal” draw claim also includes an implicit draw offer. A draw offer remains on the table only until the opponent starts to make his next move (14B1). The same should be true in the case of a potential future claim, as described above. When 50 moves have been counted, it is possible the original claimant may no longer want the draw. It seems to me the TD should not say “OK, that’s 50, the game is drawn” but rather “That’s 50. The draw is yours if you still want it”. (Of course, if the claimant doesn’t want the draw, but the opponent does, the TD should still rule the game drawn.)
Putting these together, should the TD say “OK, that’s the 3rd repetition, the draw is yours if you want it.” in response to 14C8 claims? (Regardless of whether the TD was summoned by a player or just happened to walk by.)
Taking it further, if the claimant does not want the draw the first time, should the TD keep observing and repeat this statement each time he notices a valid 3rd repetition claim is possible? (The second occurrence of a 3rd repetition could be in a position less favorable to the claimant than the first occurrence, making it a realistic possibility that he could want the draw the second time but not the first time.) Reliably keeping track of potential 3rd repetitions of various positions in a SD time scramble seems like a highly difficult if not impossible task.
Perhaps it is best for a TD to say nothing while looking for either 14F4 or 14C8 claims. For 14F4, count to 50 but don’t announce when it has been reached. If either player wants to claim a draw, he can simply stop the clocks and state his claim when he thinks 50 has been reached. If the TD count hasn’t reached 50, keep playing and try again later. Similarly for 14C8. If the TD has even the slightest uncertainty, deny the claim. Any problems with this approach?
For a 14F claim (the 50 move rule), I would regard the player’s summoning of a TD, stating the intention to claim the draw, and asking the director to count moves to be an irrevocable draw claim. (Draw claims are irrevocable between the time the player makes the claim and the director rules on the claim. I am being a bit expansionary by extending this irrevocability across the moves that the director is counting. However, I could be talked out of this position.)
Once the fifty moves have been completed, the director simply rules on the claim by declaring the game drawn. End of discussion.
I can not find the words to express sufficiently my disagreement with the idea of a director handling a triple occurrence of position by intervening and saying “that’s the third occurrence, the draw is yours if you want it.” I would say that is fundamentally broken, but the problem is that statement is not nearly strong enough.
If the player had earlier asked the TD to watch for a possible triple occurrence, and now it has happened, then “the draw is yours if you want it” sounds appropriate to me.
If, however, the player had never summoned the TD to begin with, but the TD notices there has now been a triple occurrence, the TD should keep his mouth shut, unless the player now makes a claim. (Neither a triple occurrence nor a 50-move situation is an automatic draw – somebody must claim it.) If the player does now make a claim, of course the TD could immediately grant the claim based on personal observation.
Nope. The claimant has withdrawn his claim, so the TD is off the hook. A new claim would be required. (If a new claim is made, the TD would presumably already know there has been a triple occurrence, so could grant the claim immediately.)
Since the position is still the same, it could not very well be less favorable than before, unless of course you are referring to the time situation.
That’s for sure. The TD should certainly not grant the claim if he is uncertain about its validity. And players need to understand this, too.
I assume you mean after a player has asked the TD to stand by and watch for 14F4 or 14C8 situations.
I don’t like this idea at all. For one thing, by now the player is expecting the TD to step in at move 50. Or, if not, the player is likely to start making a claim on every move, creating an extreme annoyance for the opponent, not to mention players in other games.