If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE
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.
I recognize that the rule is designed to allow the game to continue, as defined by FIDE. On a personal level, I think this is kind of silly, but I recognize that FIDE allows for under Rule 5.2(d) this exact eventuality (much like the 50 move thing).
However, in either case, the idea is, if neither player claims or wants the draw, the game could continue. I think this is the "spirit" and "intent" of the rule. If one player does want a draw, I think the position should be drawn. I favour an interpretation that leads to this outcome.
Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE
I guess it doesn't bother you that your preference causes adminstrative problems. For example, player A makes the move (3rd repetition), player B starts thinking, 5 minutes later player A says I claim a draw. Perhaps player B is in the middle of making his move which player A suddenly realizes is winning - arguement ensues as to whether player B has made his move or not extinguishing player A's claim. Worse yet, if player B realizes he might have a good continuation, he has to rush his move without full consideration because of the risk that player A might suddenly claim the draw.
Even if you argue that you shouldn't allow player A an extended time to make his claim, then your preference will lead to disputes over just what is an extended time. And so on.
The existing rule is straightforward, unambiguous as to each player's rights, and does not cause arguements or difficulties in interpretation for the arbiter.
I guess it doesn't bother you that your preference causes adminstrative problems. For example, player A makes the move (3rd repetition), player B starts thinking, 5 minutes later player A says I claim a draw. Perhaps player B is in the middle of making his move which player A suddenly realizes is winning - arguement ensues as to whether player B has made his move or not extinguishing player A's claim. Worse yet, if player B realizes he might have a good continuation, he has to rush his move without full consideration because of the risk that player A might suddenly claim the draw.
Even if you argue that you shouldn't allow player A an extended time to make his claim, then your preference will lead to disputes over just what is an extended time. And so on.
The existing rule is straightforward, unambiguous as to each player's rights, and does not cause arguements or difficulties in interpretation for the arbiter.
How can this happen if Player A has not yet hit his clock, which as described in Rule 6.7 is still his "move".
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.
I find that is well writen.
In Québec city I had a situation where I faced a much higher rated master and I played Ng5-f3-g5-f3 on Re8-f8-e8 in the Zaitsev Spanish and claimed the draw incorectly, the arbiter, being a sensible man, closed the conversation and declared the game a draw. After that he said he made a mistake. Someone asked my oponent: why did you repeat moves if you did'nt want the draw?? He said: "well I did'nt think he was gonna do it! I don't know what else to play." But my argument is:"well too bad for you, you fell into a 3-fold repetition, that is the way we play the game." So he tried to get an unfair advantage by knowing a technical phrase in some ambiguously writen 400 pages rulebook, that's poor sportsmanship alright.
Last edited by Claude Carrier; Wednesday, 5th September, 2012, 07:49 PM.
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.
Vlad, I think you should be more careful next time not only with USCF rules but more with not missing three move repetitions again. You should admit that first of all it was your mistake, and if your opponent would claim a draw correctly - draw would be a fair result (I understand that high blood pressure is an excuse, but still...). This is the first and major issue in this story.
Second issue is that your opponent claimed a draw incorrectly according to the FIDE rules, so he made his mistake over your mistake and just "forgave" you.
And the third issue is that USCF rules do not comply with FIDE rules which is really strange and unclear.
Vlad, I think you should be more careful next time not only with USCF rules but more with not missing three move repetitions again.
Yes. It was my fault. Also I had messed up my record of the game so was not sure what moves had been played and could not dispute my opponents version of the game.
You should admit that first of all it was your mistake, and if your opponent would claim a draw correctly - draw would be a fair result
Yes. I fully agree that if my opponent had made the correct claim then I would have only myself to blame and based on the fact that the game was FIDE rated I was under the mistaken impression that this implied a certain set of rules with which I was quite familiar.
(I understand that high blood pressure is an excuse, but still...). This is the first and major issue in this story.
Second issue is that your opponent claimed a draw incorrectly according to the FIDE rules, so he made his mistake over your mistake and just "forgave" you.
He made a mistake under FIDE rules but not under USCF rules, apparently. The beginning of this thread can be considered a cautionary tale for other Canadians wandering into USCF waters. It is not that big a deal. It cost me 16 USCF rating points and probably a similar number of FIDE rating points. I hope the same thing can be avoided by anyone reading this. A more important mistake occurred around move 40 when I had a few seconds on my clock and I carelessly gave up a pawn that I didn't need to give up greatly complicating the struggle. I was avoiding a passive position for my rooks which would have preserved my pawns in favour of a mating net that ultimately didn't work.
The people arguing that the rules are not important puzzle me. Under FIDE rules my opponent blundered. If he had blundered a pawn or a piece would it be poor sportsmanship to take the offered gift? I don't think so.
And the third issue is that USCF rules do not comply with FIDE rules which is really strange and unclear.
That is the main point that I wanted to communicate. The TD was correct under the USCF rules currently in force. The fact that the tournament was advertised as FIDE rated led me to believe that FIDE rules would be in force. Apparently that is not the case. There are many other significant rule differences that I am now aware of.
That is the main point that I wanted to communicate. The TD was correct under the USCF rules currently in force. The fact that the tournament was advertised as FIDE rated led me to believe that FIDE rules would be in force. Apparently that is not the case. There are many other significant rule differences that I am now aware of.
It is interesting to know in respect to your case when the USCF rules consider that the move is complete: after the piece is released on the final square or when the clock is pressed?
According to FIDE rules the move is complete when the piece is released on the final square. In other words, you don't have to wait until your opponent will press the clock (let's say if he forgot to do it) but you just can make your move immediately.
If USCF rule is the same, and your opponent did not pause the clock when was calling TD, you could make a quick move to avoid his right to claim a draw according to USCF rules.
So, or USCF rules should require a player to pause the clock when calling TD for 3 move repetition, or there is a loop-hole in their rules.
It is interesting to know in respect to your case when the USCF rules consider that the move is complete: after the piece is released on the final square or when the clock is pressed?
According to FIDE rules the move is complete when the piece is released on the final square. In other words, you don't have to wait until your opponent will press the clock (let's say if he forgot to do it) but you just can make your move immediately.
If USCF rule is the same, and your opponent did not pause the clock when was calling TD, you could make a quick move to avoid his right to claim a draw according to USCF rules.
So, or USCF rules should require a player to pause the clock when calling TD for 3 move repetition, or there is a loop-hole in their rules.
Maybe you're reading different rules than I am, but 6.7(a) of the FIDE Laws of Chess seem to suggest otherwise.
It is interesting to know in respect to your case when the USCF rules consider that the move is complete: after the piece is released on the final square or when the clock is pressed?
According to FIDE rules the move is complete when the piece is released on the final square. In other words, you don't have to wait until your opponent will press the clock (let's say if he forgot to do it) but you just can make your move immediately.
If USCF rule is the same, and your opponent did not pause the clock when was calling TD, you could make a quick move to avoid his right to claim a draw according to USCF rules.
So, or USCF rules should require a player to pause the clock when calling TD for 3 move repetition, or there is a loop-hole in their rules.
This is one of the questions I asked early in the thread. My opponent did not initially pause the clock but after making the move I wonder what the situation would have been if I had just made the move that I intended with a pawn to negate any further chances of an immediate repetition of position. I let him stop the clock because I figured that he had made the claim incorrectly and thus it didn't make much difference.
Maybe you're reading different rules than I am, but 6.7(a) of the FIDE Laws of Chess seem to suggest otherwise.
You are right with 6.7, however there is a contradiction with 4.6.
From the practical point of view, I have seen many times in the tournaments that one of the players forgot to press the clock after his move, and then the opponent just made his move not waiting until the clock will be pressed.
How can this happen if Player A has not yet hit his clock, which as described in Rule 6.7 is still his "move".
We are getting deep into technicalities here, but what about this scenario: Player A makes a move, letting go of the moved piece to make it official, but then fails to hit the clock, gets up and walks away from the board.
According to someone on this thread, he has witnessed this scenario and saw Player B quickly make a move, leaving Player A's clock ticking. Really I think that's the only option for Player B, because if s/he decided to not move and just leave the Player A's clock ticking, Player A could come back to the board much later and exclaim, "What did you do? You started my clock without making a move!"
If there would no witnesses, how would Player B defend? Therefore Player B is virtually obligated to make a quick move on the board, before Player A has a chance to return and make his / her bogus claim.
But it's a very interesting concept, this thing you mention about who "has the move". Because once Player A lets go of the moved piece, there is no going back. So how can Player A "have the move"? My preference would be that Player B should be entitled to move once Player A has let go of his / her moved piece.
In fact, once Player A has let go of the moved piece, Player B should have the right to press the clock for Player A to make the move absolutely official. Leaving Player A's clock running after Player A has completed a move is just begging for trouble. And thus, any chance of Player A claiming a draw after making a move (but without pressing the clock) would be eliminated by Player B.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
We are getting deep into technicalities here, but what about this scenario: Player A makes a move, letting go of the moved piece to make it official, but then fails to hit the clock, gets up and walks away from the board.
According to someone on this thread, he has witnessed this scenario and saw Player B quickly make a move, leaving Player A's clock ticking. Really I think that's the only option for Player B, because if s/he decided to not move and just leave the Player A's clock ticking, Player A could come back to the board much later and exclaim, "What did you do? You started my clock without making a move!"
If there would no witnesses, how would Player B defend? Therefore Player B is virtually obligated to make a quick move on the board, before Player A has a chance to return and make his / her bogus claim.
But it's a very interesting concept, this thing you mention about who "has the move". Because once Player A lets go of the moved piece, there is no going back. So how can Player A "have the move"? My preference would be that Player B should be entitled to move once Player A has let go of his / her moved piece.
In fact, once Player A has let go of the moved piece, Player B should have the right to press the clock for Player A to make the move absolutely official. Leaving Player A's clock running after Player A has completed a move is just begging for trouble. And thus, any chance of Player A claiming a draw after making a move (but without pressing the clock) would be eliminated by Player B.
Letting go of the piece does not end the "turn". It is not a "move" in that sense. That's the whole point of 6.7(a).
Letting go of the piece does not end the "turn". It is not a "move" in that sense. That's the whole point of 6.7(a).
But if Player A makes a move, letting go of the moved piece, and fails to hit the clock, exactly what state is the game in? You are a lawyer, so try to think about it from a potential scam point of view. Player A makes the move, fails to hit the clock, and walks away from the board.
It is fully possible that Player A intends to return to the board, act surprised, and claim that Player B started Player A's clock without making a move, hoping there were no witnesses to what really happened.
Therefore, in the interest of protecting his / her own interest, Player B should be fully entitled, once Player A has completed the move by letting go of the moved piece, to wait perhaps a few seconds, maybe 30 seconds or so, and if Player A shows no inclination to hit his own clock, Player B should be entitled to do it for him. Remember, Player A has absolutely no right to take back his / her move. Hitting the clock is the only possible next step.
Unless Player A's move has just caused 3-time repetition to occur, then and only then can Player A do something besides hit the clock: s/he may STOP THE CLOCK, claim a draw and seek out the TD.
I'm trying to think of this from a lawyer's point of view, to prevent all possible scams, but if I'm missing something, maybe you can point it out.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
In Québec city I had a situation where I faced a much higher rated master and I played Ng5-f3-g5-f3 on Re8-f8-e8 in the Zaitsev Spanish and claimed the draw ... Someone asked my oponent: why did you repeat moves if you did'nt want the draw?? He said: "well I did'nt think he was gonna do it! I don't know what else to play." But my argument is:"well too bad for you, you fell into a 3-fold repetition, that is the way we play the game." So he tried to get an unfair advantage by knowing a technical phrase in some ambiguously writen 400 pages rulebook, that's poor sportsmanship alright.
It reminded me Kasparov vs some US junior in a simul play. (I think it was on the youtube video). The junior chose a drawish variation with a 3-time repetition. Kasparov just got mad...
But if Player A makes a move, letting go of the moved piece, and fails to hit the clock, exactly what state is the game in? You are a lawyer, so try to think about it from a potential scam point of view. Player A makes the move, fails to hit the clock, and walks away from the board.
It is fully possible that Player A intends to return to the board, act surprised, and claim that Player B started Player A's clock without making a move, hoping there were no witnesses to what really happened.
Therefore, in the interest of protecting his / her own interest, Player B should be fully entitled, once Player A has completed the move by letting go of the moved piece, to wait perhaps a few seconds, maybe 30 seconds or so, and if Player A shows no inclination to hit his own clock, Player B should be entitled to do it for him. Remember, Player A has absolutely no right to take back his / her move. Hitting the clock is the only possible next step.
Unless Player A's move has just caused 3-time repetition to occur, then and only then can Player A do something besides hit the clock: s/he may STOP THE CLOCK, claim a draw and seek out the TD.
I'm trying to think of this from a lawyer's point of view, to prevent all possible scams, but if I'm missing something, maybe you can point it out.
I don't think you're ever allowed to hit your opponents clock.
Tweet
Comment