Seemingly conflicting rules for triple-occurrence claims

Running Chess Tournaments
1

There seems to be a conflict on how to properly claim a triple occurrence of position that the player on the move creates.

First, we have the specific rule: “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 the move on the scoresheet but not play the move on the board, stop both clocks (5I), and state the claim.”

Then there is “14C4. Claim after moving without pressing the 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.”

These two seem to conflict with “9G1. Player still on move for claims. Claims of triple occurrence of position (14C), the 50-move rule (14F), or insufficient losing changes in sudden death (14H) remain in order during the period between determination and completion of the move.”

Rule 9A says that the move is “competed when that player presses the clock (5H).”

Just to be clear, 5H is “Pressing the clock” and 5I is “Stopping the clock”. These are two distinct things.

So, MY reading of the rules hinges on the word “should” in 14C2, and I would allow the draw claim even if the claimant played the move, wrote it down, and stopped the clock (5I) to make the claim.

This, however, is still contradicted by 14C4, which seems to require the claimant to allow his clock to run.

And this, in turn, conflicts with 9G1, which says that he can still make the claim if he STOPPED (5I) the clock, but did not PRESS (5H) the clock.

2

14C4 doesn’t require the claimant to allow his clock to run. It simply provides relief if he/she does make the move on the board but doesn’t stop, or press the clock, and

9G1 allows the claimant to stop the clock, but not PRESS the clock.

3

I disagree – 14C4 specifically says, “…but allows it to run” (which one is NOT doing if the stops the clock (5I).

Worse, 14C4 continues, “However, this procedure is not recommended. The player who moves and allows the clock to run will lose the time that elapses before a ruling if the claim is not upheld. It is preferred that the player stops both clocks (5I) in order to retain the right to claim a draw under 14C.”

So the same 14C4 both says the claimant must allow his clock to run if he has made the move, and prefers that he stop the clock.

I recommend changing the word SHOULD to MAY in 14C2. How to claim, and recommend doing so because the claimant might inadvertently press the clock instead of stopping it, and thus lose his right to claim the draw. And in 14C4. Claiming after moving without pressing the clock, and after “but allows it to run” add “or stops the clock (5I).”

4

I think 14C read in total is pretty clear. If the player wishing to claim a draw presses the clock he’s out of luck. Otherwise it is OK.

Alex Relyea

5

That goes for any claim, of course. But that is 9G1, not 14C.

6

Often, when revising a rule, it is wise to first consider the desired effect of the proposed rule, and only afterwards worry about how to write the rule to implement that desired effect.

In the case of triple occurrence, common sense tells me that:

  1. If the claimant has already started his opponent’s clock, the draw claim should be disallowed.
  2. If the claimant has stopped both clocks, or has left his own clock running, the draw claim should be considered on its merits.

Under (B) above:

  1. The arbiter should first stop the clocks (if they haven’t already been stopped).
  2. The arbiter should then determine whether: (a) the claim is based on the position already on the board, without a move by the claimant, or (b) the claim is based on a move specified by the claimant. In making this determination, the arbiter should, if necessary, ask the claimant whether the claim is based on (a) or (b).

Under (2) above, in case (a), the arbiter should rule based on the validity of the claim.

Or, in case (b), the arbiter should next determine what move the claimant has specified:

  • If the claimant has made a move on the board, he has thereby specified that move. The arbiter should then ask the claimant to also write this move on his scoresheet, if he has not done so already.
  • Or, if the claimant has written a move on his scoresheet, he has thereby specified that move. The arbiter should then ask the claimant to also make this move on the board.
  • Or, if the claimant has specified a move verbally, the arbiter should ask the claimant to make this move on the board and write it on the scoresheet.
  • Or, if the claimant has neither made a move on the board nor written one on his scoresheet, the arbiter should ask the claimant to make a move on the board and write it on the scoresheet.

In all these cases under (b), the arbiter should inform the claimant that, if his claim is denied, the game will continue with the claimant making the specified move.

At this point the arbiter can rule based on the validity of the claim.

However you guys decide to rewrite the rules, please keep it in accordance with underlying common-sense logic, as above. Thank you!

Bill Smythe

7

Makes sense to me, except for B1 – the current rule says that the TD should ask the claimant to stop the clocks, which I prefer to having the TD do it.

8

I think I agree, at least partly.

In a tournament where the players furnish the clocks, it is probably better that the claimant do the actual clock-stopping. Who knows, the arbiter may not even know how to stop that particular brand of clock. Sometimes, e.g. if the clock was furnished by a third party, it might even be necessary to ask that third party to do it. (I can see it now: “Attention, please! Whose clock is this? Can you tell us how to stop it, please?”) :slight_smile:

In a tournament where the organizer has furnished the clocks, if the claimant seems to be having trouble stopping the clock, it would be good for the arbiter to step in quickly, before any more time is lost.

Bill Smythe

9

Three posts above, I wrote:

To the above, I now think the following should be added: “If the claimant does not respond immediately to this request, the claimant’s clock should run until the move is made on the board.”

Bill Smythe

10

You mean to tell me that you think 14C4 requires the player to let his clock run? You also believe that worse is the continuing language that says it is preferable to stop both clocks?

Well, OK, then! :unamused:

11

What I am saying is that the rule is very badly worded, and needs to be changed.

Seriously, 14C4 does say “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.” (Emphaisis mine.)

Stopping clock (5I) is obviously NOT “[allowing] it to run.”

I would support following the FIDE rule that if you touch a piece to move it, you lose the right to claim a draw on that move:

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article

12

A rather large piece of a recent thread on the same topic has to do with the wording and application of the triple occurrence rule:

viewtopic.php?p=287378#p287378

13

I haven’t read the other thread yet, but I’d say the point of “allows it to run” is that if the player makes a move and then sits there for 5-10 minutes while not pressing the clock, he can still make the claim. It’s not that it requires him to keep the clock running. Just that it allows him to still make it even though the actual move may have been some time ago.

Now that does bring up an interesting question. In this situation if the opponent goes ahead and makes a move anyway even though the clock hasn’t been pressed (common occurrence when a player forgets to hit his clock), can you still make a claim based on the position before the opponent’s move? It would seem to me that the answer is “yes” and that the TD must ignore the opponent’s move when judging the claim.

14

I am going to see if I can dig up a game where I was up a rook, and my opponent mistakenly checked my king 3 times, going back and forth, and I
promptly mis-claimed triple occurrence, and pressed my clock, and my claim was disallowed. I had a super exposed king, and it was a very difficult decision on whether to claim or not, and I had the choice of putting my king on another square to avoid the repeated checks. It was a memorable game from 1984.

I then had another occurrence at the 1986 U.S. Open where I let my clock run as I played it safe and got one of the tournament directors to make the claim of triple repetition, and my opponent stated that he would have agreed and was offended that I went to get the tournament director. When I explained that I botched this rule from that 1984 game, both the tournament director and my opponent immediately understood, and the draw was granted. Since I was not in time pressure in either of these games, it was a lesson well learned. Sometimes, I try to avoid disturbing the other games going on around me, just in case my opponent does not agree to the triple repetition claim, and have made every effort to improve my etiquette as consideration for the opponents that I competed against, along with trying to minimize the distraction that that type of claim would entail.

Respectfully Submitted,

David A. Cole, USCF Life Member, Franklin, NJ

15

Makes sense. I’ve never actually made this claim when it wasn’t abundantly obvious. But, I would say best practice is to inform your opponent of the triple-occurrence (essentially making a draw offer). If your opponent refuses to accept it, then call for the TD to make an official claim. I would certainly stop the clock, though, and preserve every second I could (just in case I was wrong).

16

Under USCF rules, except for blitz, the opponent has no right whatsoever to move or to even touch the pieces (to adjust) until the player presses the clock. (This follows from a combination of rules 6B and 9G.) Of course, when the player has obviously forgotten to press the clock, the opponent will often move while the player’s clock is still running, although this is technically not allowed.

In the example cited in the question, the TD must allow the claim and may (should) also assess a penalty against the opponent if the opponent does not agree to the (implicit) draw offer and the TD denies the claim.

17

Anyway, as promised, here is this memorable game, and perhaps, it will be a good lesson to those that don’t understand the rule:

1984 Bergen County Futurity - Round 2 - January 17th and 18th

White: Paul Truong Vs. Black: David Cole - Sicilian Dragon

  1. e4 c5 2) Nf3 d6 3) d4 c:d4 4) N:d4 Nf6 5) Nc3 g6 6) Be3 Bg7 7) f3 O-O ( Nc6 may have been played first, since the majority of my score books were damaged and not salvageable, and the sequence of these moves may be incorrect, but was able to reconstruct this game from my memory). :sunglasses: Qd2 Nc6 9) Bc4 Bd7 10) O-O-O Rc8 11) Bb3 Ne5 12) h4 h5 13) g4 h:g4 14) h5 g:h5 15) Rdg1 Nc4 16) B:c4 R:c4 17) Bh6 R:d4 18) Qg5 Ne8 19) R:h5 f5 20) B:g7 N:g7 21) Rgh1 Kf7 22) Rh7 Rg8 23) e:f5 Be8 24) Qe3 … Note: All of the above moves took about 4 minutes to complete as Paul and I took about 2 minutes each, and here is where I thought about 10 minutes. Also of note, a game adjacent to us had the following 2 moves played out on their board: 1) c4 g5 2) Nc3 Bg7… and both of these players were staring in somewhat bewilderment, and I sort of heard some snickering under one of the player’s breaths. Nevertheless, our game continued with 24) … Qb6 25) Qe6+ Kf8 26) R:g7?? … Here, Paul thought I was forced to play R:g7 and mate would follow, but instead, 26)… K:g7 and now, 27) Qh6+ Kf7 28) Qe6+ Kg7 29) Qh6+ Kf7 and now 30) Qe6+ Kg7, clock button pressed all the way down, and I claimed the draw which was disallowed. I was also considering Kf8, but Rh7 forces mate, and my king had to guard the h7 entry point, and as stated, it was an extremely difficult decision to claim the draw given the fact that I was a rook up. What then unfolded, really added to the drama of this game: 31) Q:e7+ Bf7 32) Qg5+ Kf8 33) Qh6+ Rg7 34) f4 after an hour of thought, and then the game had to be adjourned, and after 45 minutes of thought, I then sealed and played Qc6 hitting the rook on h1 and trying to tie down Paul’s queen to the defense of the rook. I then “Phoned a Friend” and was mad at myself for the invalid draw claim, and he did his best to calm me down, and got a little bit into the adjourned position, and he started to tell me about a possible knight move that Paul might try, but a phone call into my friend’s line interrupted that conversation, and the next day, the rest of this memorable game was played out: 35) Re1 Qf3 and now for the most magnificent move that I ever saw that required a real ton of guts to be played, 36) Nd5!!! - This move I would be tempted to give 10 Exclams to, and with my clock dwindling down to try and decide which of my 3 pieces should capture the knight, I then decided upon B:d5 and got mated after 37) Qf6+ Kg8 38) Re8+ Resigns 1 - 0. If I had captured with the queen and then play Re4 to block the e-file and run the king to safety to the queenside, the result would have been different, but it does not by no means diminish the guts and brains that went into this game.

Hope everybody learned something about the triple repetition of position claim, and I think this is a pretty good example of it.

Respectfully Submitted,

David A. Cole, USCF Life Member, Franklin, NJ