Here’s a question about draw by repetition.
I’ve got a case here where there’s a position that occurred three times. Neither side claimed it. Next, Black made a move (a new position). Now, White notices that they position they just left was reached for the 3rd time. I think it’s too late to make the claim for a draw, and he has to wait for the position to come back a 4th time. Is that correct?
The rule is: if you are presented with a position which has occurred for the third time, you must make this claim before making any move. If you intend to make a move which creates the third repetition, you should claim the draw with your intent to make that move, but not making it on the board (which would pass the right to make a claim to the opponent).
Once the threefold repetition is gone from the board, it’s definitely gone. Similarly, if a game went 50 moves without a capture or pawn move, it’s a draw, but if a capture or pawn move is made on the 51st move, it’s too late to make the claim.
I think the technical term is, “You snooze, you lose!”
Doesn’t the rulebook specifically allow a player, though, to make a move on the board and claim the draw, so long as he doesn’t start the opponent’s clock? I don’t have the rulebook in front of me presently, but I recall it making a point of allowing this. A difference between USCF and FIDE rules, isn’t it?
14C2. How to claim. If a move is required to complete the third occurrence of the position, the player claiming the draw under 14C should write this move on the scoresheet but not play the move on the board, stop both clocks (5I), and state the claim. If no move is required to complete the repetition, the player should stop both clocks without moving and state the claim.
14C4. Claim after moving without pressing clock. A player who moves and then does not press the clock (5H), but allows it to run, retains the right to claim a draw under 14C. … It is preferred that the player stops both clocks (5I) in order to retain the right to claim a draw under 14C.
That was the old FIDE rule, which was commonly observed in US tournaments before the USCF Rule Book was first written, and may have been incorporated in some of the earlier versions thereof. The current rule is as quoted by wilecoyote - I forgot you signal your “intent” by writing the move on your scoresheet, stopping the clock, and making the claim.
It’s more than a signal. If you write the move AND make the claim, then if the claim is rejected you are still comitted to making that move.
The original rule was changed (I believe) due to a concern that a player might inadvertently stop ONLY his own clock (and start his opponent’s clock) when he tried to stop BOTH clocks. By strict USCF-player-rules-lawyer standards, that would make it his opponent’s turn to move, and the claim would no longer be possible. Personally, I think this is silly.
I would have been before all those wretched digital clocks came on the market. There are several for which it is by no means obvious how you stop both clocks. If you make a move and start your opponent’s clock, it’s not your move any more and you cannot make any claim.
(1) My opponent’s name (see another thread about why this is a good idea).
(2) If my opponent’s clock is being used, whether it has the appropriate delay/increment set.
(3) If my opponent’s clock is being used, how I stop both clocks. I also volunteer this information to my opponent if my clock is being used.
For (2), I note that the DGT Easy Game Timer Plus has all such information displayed at all times. Yay for this.
For (3), the Chronos actually has a bit of an advantage since there is only one “additional” button. I’ve always thought a flap or door that covered “extraneous” buttons when playing would be a good idea, leaving only a button that stops the clock (and ONLY stops the clock, NOT reset it, grrrr.)
The USCF does not want people who use a Monroi to write down the move on the Monroi, and then play it…then, what would be the proper procedure to claim a draw in this circumstance using a Monroi?
Is this an exception, whereupon you are allowed to make the move on the Monroi, then claim without making it on the board? If so, what would happen if that was the intent of the player, then, after he made the move on the Monroi, he simply changed his mind, OR, he decided it was not three times, by looking at the Monroi?
If you think a player SHOULD NOT write it down on the Monroi first (as you would with a regular scoresheet), then what is the alternative?
To simplify my question: What is the proper procedure for claiming a draw with a Monroi, if the move you are about to play is the one which makes the position occur three times?
I would suggest you follow the FIDE rules which, under normal circumstances, do not allow you to write the move on your scoresheet before making it on the board irrespective of whether you are using an electronic or paper scoresheet.
To claim a draw by repetition of position you are instructed by the (FIDE) rules to write the move down on your scoresheet, thereby declaring to the TD your intention to make that move. (I would also suggest stopping the clock and you should never make the move on the board!)
So, if you are using a MonRoi, you should make the move on the MonRoi, stop the clock, inform your opponent what you are doing since he/she could just accept the draw offer anyway, and then get a TD to verify the claim if they do not agree.
It seems like putting the move on the Mon Roi first creates the potential of being able to notice that it’s not 3 fold repetition, and in some circumstances may be a bad move. The player could quickly take the move back, and find another move.
I think I would make the move and say that this is repeating the position a 3rd time, and stop both clocks.
In the USCF world your claim would be upheld so long as it met the three-fold repetition of position criteria. However, when you get to the dizzy heights of chess run using FIDE rules then your claim would be rejected.
I didn’t say FIDE rated, I said run using FIDE rules. There is a very good chance that here in the US, even a FIDE rated event would uphold your claim. In fact, if you’ve played in a US Open then you’ve played in such events.
Other than the rules, what prevents someone from stopping the clocks before moving or recording, letting the other player know they intend to make the 3rd repetition move, and then seeing if the other player agrees it will be a draw? (Or variation: stopping clocks before moving or recording, summoning TD, announcing same, then determining the move?) I can’t say I’d mind either much if I were the TD in a smaller tournament.
When the TD arrives, he may require the claimant to then make the move, before the TD begins to check out the claim. That’s fine, because by now the TD is involved. For the player to determine the move before the TD has been summoned is fraught with pitfalls, e.g. the opponent might then make his own move, and an argument could develop as to whether the first player had pressed his clock after moving, or whether he had even claimed a draw at all, etc.
I recall a couple years ago the USCF Delegates voted to allow players to write their move, change their mind and erase it, and choose another move.
(The players can do this now as long as the players would be willing to formally confirm that they did not perceive the original writings as a “notes”.)
The text of the rule allows the player to do this every turn; though with a vague addendum that the player should not do this too often or that the TD can decide when the TD vaguely feels a player has done this too often.
I could be wrong, but I do not recall the Delegates adding any verbiage that specifically excluded the three-move repetition rule procedure from this erasing-is-okay rule change.
Thus using a MonRoi could be a disadvantage in this niche case.
.