The game will be brought to a finish. The question is will it be by checkmate or by stalemate, five fold repetition, or the 75 (50) move rule. If neither player has any pawns and the weaker player has no material, then you can deputize practically any spectator and ask him to count moves. Otherwise it might require some minimal chess knowledge.
Alex Relyea
wait, what? five-fold repetition?
…scot…
I think he’s referring to the fact that this sort of rookie probably doesn’t understand this rule and won’t call it, but when it gets to five the TD can call it.
Mulfish
-————————————————————————————
This is from an old thread that veered off in other directions. Can anyone point me to the place in the 7th Edition rule book that allows (or requires?) a director to intervene after a 5-fold occurrence of position? I see in 14c.8 that a director can become involved if the claimant has under 5 minutes, but I can find nothing regarding 5-fold repetition.
14K. Director declares draw for lack of progress.
If one or both of the following occur(s) then the TD may declare the game drawn:
The same position has appeared, as in 14C, for at least five consecutive alternate moves by each player.
Any consecutive series of 75 moves have been completed by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.
Thanks. I just finally found this myself, but you are faster than I am. I need to add it to the Index in my Rulebook.
The way I read this, the “TD may rule”, not “TD must rule.” What are other TDs usually doing?
Also, I see that these do have to be consecutive moves, not simply five repetitions of position.
Many players assume that “repetitions of position” occur over consecutive moves and not created at separate times during the game. To determine that, a TD requires a set and board as well as a legible scoresheet to figure out if a three fold repetition has occurred. In this newer formulation, there is a more intrusive TD involvement, usually a matter of tournament management, which allows the TD to see and determine the repetition over 5 consecutive moves. Whether the players welcome this intrusion is another question, but then they should have offered a draw earlier to end the mess of a lack of progress in a game.
As a TD, I have often bitten my tongue while watching a lifeless game which is a “book” draw, a dead draw as long as the players do nothing stupid, or a mere reshuffling of pieces behind locked pawn walls that are not going to be breached with a sacrifice by either player. The new interpretation finally allows an opportunity to end the game and get the next round paired. I expect that no one has done a study yet, but with increment time controls we are likely going to see more longer games and the need for TDs to apply rule 14K.
One reason for being “may” instead of “must” is that a TD may not be watching every game early in the round when two players have gotten to a repetition 15 minutes into a G/45 round.
Also, this allows the section chief or chief TD to limit the application of the rule to only TDs that are trusted to make a valid decision.
Late in the round the pairing TD, floor chief or section chief is perfectly willing to end a game so that the next round can get paired.
I remember one scholastic tournament that was organized by a very strong player that was well regarded chess teacher. One of his master friends looked at a game and went out of the tournament room to let the organizer know that the game was a dead draw. The organizer said that one player would win, at which point his friend pointed out that all the other player had to do was keep the king near the passed pawn that was easy to stop. The organizer agreed that with proper play the game was drawn, but with young scholastic players the player that needed to be defensive would use the king offensively and end up with an out-of-position king that was not able to stop the pawn from queening. The organizer was correct.
Very little still surprises me on the bottom boards of a scholastic event.
“Consecutive alternate” means that the same position has occurred, for example, after black’s 50th, 52nd, 54th, 56th, and 58th moves.
I believe FIDE recently removed the “consecutive alternate” requirement from its version of the 5-fold repetition rule. I thought U.S. Chess had followed suit, but perhaps not.
I’ve found the opposite. Increment time controls make it much less likely that a player with only the increment is going to run out of time. It means that a player with K+B+N vs. K is more likely to be able to calculate the mate. It means that even in dead drawn positions, one player will be able to create optical progress. It means that both players are extremely likely to have complete scoresheets, so that the defending player will be able to claim a draw immediately upon 50 moves or threefold repetition.