USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

[Aman Hambleton]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

A 3-fold repetition was demonstrated. That it was demonstrated by moving a piece instead of by telling the TD what you plan to move, why does it matter?

I played a game against Roman Sapozhnikov at a Thanksgiving Open or Labour Day Open back when they were held at Macedonia Hall in downtown Toronto many years ago. I made a move on the board, and looked up offering a draw expecting to just shake hands since it would be the third repetition. Instead, Roman said nothing and I thought I had to complete my move by pressing the clock or else the draw would not be 'official.' I pressed my clock and then Roman instantly moved. When I called the Arbiter over and was completely clueless as to why the game was still continuing, he explained I had made an incorrect claim. Roman went on to turn the position into a B + N vs. K endgame and to this day I'll never know if he knew how to orchestrate that checkmate because I was too frustrated from the missed draw claim and I resigned :)

Not exactly the same as this case, but its clear that you need to demonstrate any claim with pinpoint accuracy according to the rules. 'Why does it matter' doesn't cut it.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

20 years ago I played in a tournament in Budapest where the two players heading into the last round were paired and both needed a win to make a GM norm. They got some position where White played Bf4 then Black played ...Nh5, the B moved back the N moved back to f6, etc. The position was repeated three times and as he made the third repetition White offered a draw. Not surprisingly, Black refused. The position was then about to be repeated for a fourth time, when White asked another player to get a TD. Black mumbled something along the lines of "I'll do something else", was pretty much forced to play a dubious move and the game continued. White eventually won.

It showed me that the threefold-repetition rule can be used as a weapon in a chessplayer's arsenal, just like any other. That's why there must a proper mechanism to make a claim. In the above example, White demonstrated excellent psychological skills to make his opponent believe that he was serious about making a draw, but me, I have my doubts even now. Easy to say when you aren't a player, of course.

BTW, I see on chesslab.com they sanitized the game score so there isn't any repetition, but I was on the adjacent board and it definitely happened.

[Matthew Scott]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

Hi,


I am under the impression that federations may have some freedoms as to how treat a lot of the rules, clashing with FIDE standards.

Apart from (I guess, I didn't verify it, simply read parts of this thread) the 3-fold-draw-claim being different in USA in FIDE-rated tournaments, there are other discrepancies.

For example... as I understand it, the default latency allowed by FIDE is now zero. In Canada (and really, most of the world still), the norm is to allow players to arrive up to 1 hour late before forfeiting. FIDE seems to be implementing this "zero tolerance" at most top level tournaments, including World Championship, Olympiads, etc... and some players have been forfeited by being just outside the playing hall casually yapping at the start of round.
In France, the federation changed the default to 30 minutes allowed before forfeiting.

In the FIDE handbook, it clearly states that an unplayed game is not rated (say, because of one of the opponents doesn't show up and forfeits). In CFC, it has been.

A requested bye, according to FIDE, means that a player is not paired for that round, and receives zero points for it. North Americans have been tossing 1/2 point byes to everyone left right and centre since I can remember. Does this not jeopardize the integrity of Swiss Pairings?

According to FIDE Swiss Rules, there is only ONE correct way of making pairings, for each specific occasion. An arbiter in Canada should arrive to the same pairing as an arbiter in India or an arbiter in Argentina. Yet we know this is violated regularly. In part because the SwissSys we use is not recognized as an official pairings program by FIDE (and many of its defaults features are set to USCF-friendly type rules), because there's human intervention, etc...

To add to the above, it is 100% prohibited to force an unnatural pairing to facilitate norm chances, benefiting a player's interests. There have been a few arguments between players and arbiters in the USA over this.

There surely must be a ton more minor differences as to how different federations approach FIDE rules, tweak them, and so on.


At the end of the day, there is also a ton of freedom by the arbiter and organizer to change and adapt many of the recommendations by FIDE.
"acting in the best interest of the competition", yadda yadda.
It's important to verify which areas the arbiter has freedom and which areas he/she does not.


Alex Ferreira

All of which neatly summarizes the fact that there are things which are fundamental to play (e.g.: the fact the bishop can only move diagonally), and things which are ancillary to game play but that help achieve consistency (e.g.: the way one declares a draw by repetition or the rules Alex speaks of above).

-

Now speaking to Vlad directly:

It is not that I "like getting into arguments", as you proposed above. It is simply that where I feel there is a legitimate point to be made, I am willing to make it, regardless of whether this may result in a disagreement.

On this issue, you clearly understood that the intention of your opponent was to trigger the draw on account of your repetition. While I understand you are unhappy with this result, the substantive rules have been followed. It is incredibly poor sportsmanship for you to now argue that because your opponent did not engage in what you consider to be the right sequence of manoeuvres, the position is no longer drawn.

The spirit and intent of the rule, either at the USCF or FIDE, is to ensure legitimate draws on account of three move repetition are drawn. That is what happened. Accordingly, the right decision was made.

[Matthew Scott]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

I played a game against Roman Sapozhnikov at a Thanksgiving Open or Labour Day Open back when they were held at Macedonia Hall in downtown Toronto many years ago. I made a move on the board, and looked up offering a draw expecting to just shake hands since it would be the third repetition. Instead, Roman said nothing and I thought I had to complete my move by pressing the clock or else the draw would not be 'official.' I pressed my clock and then Roman instantly moved. When I called the Arbiter over and was completely clueless as to why the game was still continuing, he explained I had made an incorrect claim. Roman went on to turn the position into a B + N vs. K endgame and to this day I'll never know if he knew how to orchestrate that checkmate because I was too frustrated from the missed draw claim and I resigned :)

Not exactly the same as this case, but its clear that you need to demonstrate any claim with pinpoint accuracy according to the rules. 'Why does it matter' doesn't cut it.

See this is where you and I are different. I would have objected. Persuasively. I would not have agreed to continue the game. The game was drawn.

As to the rules - I would think they are pretty clear. A position repeated three times is a draw. That's a basic chess rule. If you want, you could remove all ambiguity by simply making it automatic.

-

Interestingly, the OPs understanding of the FIDE Rules are wrong.

See Rule 9.2(B) which covers what his opponent did.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

Interestingly, the OPs understanding of the FIDE Rules are wrong.

See Rule 9.2(B) which covers what his opponent did.

9.2

The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):


a.

is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or


b.

has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.



Positions as in (a) and (b) areconsidered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.
Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured in this manner. When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its castling rights, if any, only after it is moved.


Please explain to me how my understanding and that of every arbiter who has replied to this thread is wrong with respect to FIDE rules. It is quite possible that you are simply trolling or don't understand the nuances of the rule or maybe suffer from a cognitive impairment or a problem with your reading comprehension that prevents you from properly interpreting what you read. If you are trolling, you need to work on your technique.

This discussion is important to me because one of my students at WYCC had a controversy with the exact same rule and did not execute the proper sequence. The rules are there for a reason. If you do not execute them correctly then you shouldn't be surprised if this results in a result different from what you expect. Given the fact that the rule is different in the USCF, I have to let my students know of this fact as many of them play just across the river in Detroit. This discussion has been fruitful in highlighting many differences between the USCF and FIDE rules that I was not aware of.

[Alex Ferreira]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

Has this changed? Last I read Swiss pairings were governed by some rules but they also allowed substantial freedom within those rules to tailor the system to a particular tournament style.

Hi Alan,

I don't know how it used to be before, but here's directly from FIDE Handbook:

Section C. General Rules and Recommendations for Tournaments
4.FIDE Swiss Rules
4.5 General Handling Rules

C. Maximising player’s opportunities
The FIDE Swiss Rules pair the players in an objective and impartial way, and different arbiters following the pairing rules should arrive at identical pairings. A proposal for varying the normal pairing so as to maximise players' opportunities to fulfil title requirements was not approved in the Graz Congress.
Where it can be shown that modifications of the original pairings were made in favour of a player to achieve a norm, a report may be submitted to the Qualification Commission to initiate disciplinary measures through the Ethics Commission (GA 1997)

[Matthew Scott]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

9.2

The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):


a.

is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or


b.

has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.



Positions as in (a) and (b) areconsidered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.
Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured in this manner. When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its castling rights, if any, only after it is moved.


Please explain to me how my understanding and that of every arbiter who has replied to this thread is wrong with respect to FIDE rules. It is quite possible that you are simply trolling or don't understand the nuances of the rule or maybe suffer from a cognitive impairment or a problem with your reading comprehension that prevents you from properly interpreting what you read. If you are trolling, you need to work on your technique.

This discussion is important to me because one of my students at WYCC had a controversy with the exact same rule and did not execute the proper sequence. The rules are there for a reason. If you do not execute them correctly then you shouldn't be surprised if this results in a result different from what you expect. Given the fact that the rule is different in the USCF, I have to let my students know of this fact as many of them play just across the river in Detroit. This discussion has been fruitful in highlighting many differences between the USCF and FIDE rules that I was not aware of.

Man you are tiresome.

You claimed the player (i) made a move and (ii) claimed the draw. This is precisely what (b) articulates. The player had not yet hit their clock - ergo, they still had the move.

See rule 6.7(a).

During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock. A player must always be allowed to stop hisclock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game. (See the Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c and 9.6)
The time between making the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock and starting his opponent‘s clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.

The rule was correctly applied. Note that although a three-fold repetition could end the game - it is not among the exceptions provided in the FIDE Rule Book. Therefore, even after moving the piece, the position can be said to have "just appeared", and since it is still their move, the situation AS DESCRIBED BY YOU would be a draw.

There was another example in this thread which, as so defined, would not qualify, but I didn't make the rules up - I don't need to agree with them - I'm just saying, your understanding is mistaken when the rules are read harmoniously and in context with the other rules.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

Man you are tiresome.

You claimed the player (i) made a move and (ii) claimed the draw. This is precisely what (b) articulates. The player had not yet hit their clock - ergo, they still had the move.

There is one more FIDE rule which should be followed claiming the draw.
"9.4 If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3 without having claimed the draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move."

Anyway, after a player moved a piece, he lost "MOVE". (b) is for a case when opponent made the third time repetition.

[Matthew Scott]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

There is one more FIDE rule which should be followed claiming the draw.
"9.4 If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3 without having claimed the draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move."

Thus with (b)
You first claim, than move, (may stop the clock 9.5), go to the arbiter, and wait for his verdict.

If you move (touch) and claim - you loose the right.

9.4 doesn't actually answer what happens in the event the player says:

"draw by repetition (claiming the draw)" and moves the piece as articulated in 9.2(b) and 6.7(a) has not hit his clock.

But look - this whole thing is stupid. The preamble to all of the rules give arbiters the discretion to interpret and apply the rules. This is completely administrative, and technical. It has literally nothing to do with the actual gameplay.

Pretending it does just makes a mountain out of a mole hill and detracts from, rather than enhances, the chess community.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

Man you are tiresome.

You claimed the player (i) made a move and (ii) claimed the draw. This is precisely what (b) articulates. The player had not yet hit their clock - ergo, they still had the move.

I suggest you get someone who can read English at the level of at least a third grader to read the rule for you and explain it to you.

I suggest you follow your suggested procedure next time you wish to claim a draw by threefold repetition and see where it gets you. Myself I will listen to what Chris Mallon and Vlad Rekhson and Egidijus Zeromskis have to say on this subject.

The draw claim by your opponent was invalid as soon as he touched a piece. Interestingly enough, one of the proposed changes to the laws of chess would make his claim valid, but under the current rules, you would have grounds to appeal this decision with FIDE.

The rule was correctly applied.

It may have been correctly applied under USCF rules.

Note that although a three-fold repetition could end the game - it is not among the exceptions provided in the FIDE Rule Book. Therefore, even after moving the piece, the position can be said to have "just appeared", and since it is still their move, the situation AS DESCRIBED BY YOU would be a draw.

Go ahead and follow this procedure that you are suggesting and see where it gets you when you wish to claim a draw by three fold repetition in a FIDE tournament.

There was another example in this thread which, as so defined, would not qualify, but I didn't make the rules up - I don't need to agree with them - I'm just saying, your understanding is mistaken when the rules are read harmoniously and in context with the other rules.

Whatever.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

"draw by repetition (claiming the draw)" and moves the piece as articulated in 9.2(b) and 6.7(a) has not hit his clock.

sorry, I correct my response.

[Matthew Scott]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

I suggest you get someone who can read English at the level of at least a third grader to read the rule for you and explain it to you.

I understand that it is your natural reaction when someone disagrees with you to throw around insults like candy, but perhaps if you acted like an adult and actually discussed the substantive rules, rather than just blindly adhering to your own opinion, the conversation may actually get somewhere.

I would also suggest that my primary argument is (and remains) that the spirit and intent of the rules were followed. My secondary argument is that one could make a legitimate claim, on the basis of the way the rules are written, that the application as proposed was legitimate.

Admittedly, I do not work for FIDE, so I cannot tell you whether this is how they choose to interpret their own rules - there may well be more than one possible interpretation.

[Vlad Rekhson]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

How would an appeal work given that the game was discontinued? Presumably the game can't be declared a win. A complicating factor is that the player went to the TD and asked her how the mechanics of a three fold repetition claim should be made and she may have given him incorrect advice based on the USCF rulebook.

I'm not sure if the opponent was FIDE rated or not. [EDIT actually he is FIDE rated]. If not then the only damage is about 16 points to my USCF rating being the difference between the points I gained for the draw and what I would have gained if I had won. If I had won I would have played a better player in the third round and not entered the Yoyo effect. That's what I get for not playing in Toronto.

You would probably need to appeal it on the spot, right now the only thing that you could get is a moral victory. Perhaps you can contact FIDE and ask them for opinion. I guess, one thing that you might get out of it is that the game will not count for rating if your opponent was lower rated.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

You would probably need to appeal it on the spot, right now the only thing that you could get is a moral victory. Perhaps you can contact FIDE and ask them for opinion. I guess, one thing that you might get out of it is that the game will not count for rating if your opponent was lower rated.

He was higher rated and I gained two or three points though I will have to check what the net impact was. It seems that the rules in the U.S. may be different even in the case of FIDE rated events so I will live with it and be more careful next time.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE

The spirit and intent of the rule, either at the USCF or FIDE, is to ensure legitimate draws on account of three move repetition are drawn. That is what happened. Accordingly, the right decision was made.

Matthew, I'm not clear on something. Are you saying above that any game where 3-time repetition occurs has only one correct result, and that result is a draw?

It seems like the rules about specifically claiming the 3-time repetition draw are meant to allow for the possibility of the game continuing on and not resulting in a draw. In other words, such a game would only be a draw if one of the two players correctly claimed it. Is it correct to say that both players have the option to not even claim the draw and continue the game? Of course, if the two players are just repeating a position over and over, they are both ok with a draw, but sometimes a position can repeat 3 times or more without either player intending a draw, but maybe (for example) just reaching a time control or just making a quick move in time trouble.