The 6th edition states only two methods of drawing. I understand the issue of not having a score sheet, but Triple Repetition of Position can be verified by a TD, and so can, perhaps, the 50-move rule. Are the new rules to be interpreted as not allowing these two drawing methods?
The 6th edition states more than two methods of drawing:
- Stalemate
- Agreement
- Both flags down
- When one player has insufficient mating material when the opponent flags or makes an illegal move
- Insufficient losing chances if you post this variation
I brought the issue of “triple occurrence of position” and “the 50-move rule” (and insufficient material to continue) not being mentioned as ways a Blitz game can end in a draw in the thread “Blitz rules clarifications” and that this might confuse people into thinking these drawing methods don’t exist in Blitz (they do).
I think the simplest thing to do is to simplify the section on draws in Blitz into something like this:
“The game can end in a draw in all the same ways as regular and quick chess except for the following differences:
a) A game is a draw if a player has insufficient mating material when the opponent makes an illegal move
b) A player can claim a draw by “triple occurrence of position” or “the 50 move rule” in the same manner as in sudden death time pressure in regular chess with the exception that, as in quick chess, the player need not be under 5 minutes.
c) No draw by insufficient losing chances
Variation c1): Allowing “Insufficient Losing Chances” (ILC) claims. This must advertised and announced in advance. A player must have under one minute to make a claim. If the claim is denied, one minute is subtracted from the claimant’s times, causing an automatic loss.
See Also 14 The Drawn Game”
To explain b)-In regular chess, a player that is under 5 minutes in sudden death time pressure can claim a draw by “triple occurrence of position” based on the observation of a TD and can have a TD count for “the 50-move rule” and does not need a scoresheet. I added that “the player need not be under 5 minutes” to do this in quick and blitz because I think it would be weird to force a player to have a scoresheet to claim this if they happen to have more than 5 minutes in a G/5+2 blitz game for example.
I stand corrected on the other draws (I hadn’t turned the page). But where, in the Blitz rules, does the 50-move rule, and the triple repetition exist?
There are not mentioned in the Blitz rules but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. A few years ago the delegates decided to change the USCF Blitz rules to the WBCA (World Blitz Chess Association) Blitz rules. I have no problem with using the WBCA Blitz rules but simply using the WBCA wording has led to confusion (such as what is meant by “completed”, does triple occurrence of position exist in Blitz, etc.)
Well, you’re contradicting yourself. First, you say “just because they’re not mentioned doesn’t mean they don’t exist”, and then you ask if they do, in fact, exist.
No I’m not. Read it more carefully. I wasn’t asking if they do in fact exist. I was saying that was something that has confused other people on if they exist or not.
Terry I can understand your confusion. Micah’s “blitz rules clarifications” thread only muddies the waters because it doesn’t answer your question PLUS goes far afield of this topic into other Blitz “problems.”
For blitz chess, I interpret the absence of those options as “not allowed” options. TDs are welcome to test the appeals process and TDCC on it. I read this quoted sentence and deduce that the normally accepted options for sudden death do not apply to Blitz.
In blitz it’s practically difficult to achieve 100 non-pawn or non-capture half moves in the allotted time with a TD counter/witness. It’s also practically difficult to have a 3 position repetition with witness(es).
None of this precludes two players using the situation as a vehicle or excuse to draw. For any draw claim, a TD should first make everyone aware that it’s a draw offer before judging whether the claim is correct. The two players may agree to the draw right away. If the offeree doesn’t want the draw, then I would deny the claim on grounds that it isn’t an option in Blitz. YMMV.
Bob,
Thank you for that quote, and I agree with your interpretation.
Yes, it would be very difficult to witness a 50-move draw in Blitz. Three-fold, maybe not so much, but I still agree with your intent.
Yes, claims are offers, but all of my questions would imply that the draw offer was declined by the opponent.
The WBCA rules never did, as far as I can remember, offer those claims, and if the current rules are based on WBCA, then I understand that those claims wouldn’t be available. The three-fold rule, though, ought to be considered as an addition, perhaps. I don’t believe an appeal could be upheld against you for denying the claim, since it isn’t in the book.
The WBCA rules given at the following two links mention a draw by perpetual check
“d) To claim a draw by perpetual check, a four-time repetition is necessary with the player counting 1,2,3,4 etc. out loud so as to make it quite clear and easier for arbiters to assist. Claimant should stop the clock after the 4th repetition.”
groups.google.com/forum/#!topic … 4rR0Oi5mFA
angelfire.com/games5/chessod … zrules.htm
The USCF Scholastic Blitz rules also mention a draw by perpetual check
“To claim a draw by perpetual check, a three-time repetition is necessary with the player counting 1, 2, 3, out loud so as to make it quite clear and easier for the TDs to assist. The claimant should stop the clock after the third repetition.”
Very good, Micah, but if you’re providing this as a refutation to my quoted claim, you have failed. 
What is “perpetual check”?
Alex Relyea
You said as far as you remembered the WBCA Blitz rules did not allow “Triple occurrence of position” and “the 50-move rule” and I was just pointing out that the WBCA Blitz rules at least allowed a certain type of “triple occurrence of position” so your statement that the WBCA Blitz rules simply did not allow “triple occurrence of position” isn’t fully correct.
No such thing.
Perpetual check, when it did exist in the rules, was nothing like repetition of position. A king could be driven all across the board with checks, with different positions arising each time. Let’s not get into a pissing match here, please.
In addition to not mentioning “triple occurence of position” and “The 50-move rule”, the Blitz rules also do not state that a game can end in a draw by “Insufficient material to continue”. Thus, would you contend there is no draw by “Insufficient material to continue” in Blitz?
No. Blitz rule 8d effectively provides for a draw by “insufficient material to continue.” Specifically, rule 8d specifies that if the opponent has insufficient mating material when a player’s flag falls, the game is drawn. If there really is insufficient material to continue, then neither player will checkmate the other. There are only three possible outcomes to the game:
- One of the players resigns.
- The players agree the game is drawn.
- One player runs out of time (and the game is drawn by rule 8d).
One could make the same argument for a non-blitz game, so rule 14D (insufficient material to continue) would seem to be superfluous as rule 14E (insufficient material to win on time) would ensure the game would end in a draw when one player runs out of time). However, as a practical matter, the time remaining in a blitz game once there is insufficient material to continue would likely be very short. There might be quite a bit of time left on the clock in a slow time control when the condition of insufficient material to continue arises, so rule 14D proves useful should one of the players not accept that the game would inevitably be drawn.
This whole thread looks like something the Rules Committee and/or the Delegates might want to address.
In the mean time, any TD/organizer can post their own variations (ala Goichberg) to suit their own needs.
When Ken makes a good rules comment, does anyone else hear in their head Nat King Cole and Stubby Kaye singing “Ken Ballou, Ken Ballou-oo-hoo, he knows the rules through and through.”?
Unfortunately, there’s the rub. Some of the blitz rules don’t seem to have been written to take into account delay or increment. It’s no longer the case that someone will inevitably run out of time.
Can you imagine that the person with only a King (for example) would not let the clock expire if they knew this was the path to a sure draw? I would make sure this option was clear if I were running events.