Draw for three repetitions but there is no repetition

Wow, so, regardless of move number, if a position occurs three times in a row throughout the game, can the opponent claim a draw?

Not sure what exactly you mean by "in a row" but it does not matter when. In theory, the same position could appear after moves 21, 57 and 93 and it would still make a draw claim valid.

@spizzi77 said in #18: > Wow, so, regardless of move number, if a position occurs three times in a row throughout the game, can the opponent claim a draw? Not sure what exactly you mean by "*in a row*" but it does not matter when. In theory, the same position could appear after moves 21, 57 and 93 and it would still make a draw claim valid.

spizzi77

#22

@mkubecek said in #21:

Wow, so, regardless of move number, if a position occurs three times in a row throughout the game, can the opponent claim a draw?

Not sure what exactly you mean by "in a row" but it does not matter when. In theory, the same position could appear after moves 21, 57 and 93 and it would still make a draw claim valid.

I didn't know this, you see, sharing doubts is always useful....This means I have to pay more attention and I'm already losing shamelessly, ahahahahah

@mkubecek said in #21: > > Wow, so, regardless of move number, if a position occurs three times in a row throughout the game, can the opponent claim a draw? > > Not sure what exactly you mean by "*in a row*" but it does not matter when. In theory, the same position could appear after moves 21, 57 and 93 and it would still make a draw claim valid. I didn't know this, you see, sharing doubts is always useful....This means I have to pay more attention and I'm already losing shamelessly, ahahahahah

IamNOTamod

#23

@CG314 said in #17:

does nit matter.

One nit? Probably not!

@CG314 said in #17: > does nit matter. One nit? Probably not!

Cedur216

edited

#24

Not to mention the fact that reviewing the rules on your own, or looking for older threads on the matter, could have solved this as well. Probably better than the obscure "few people" you consulted (what sort of people are they?)

Also the spacing of moves in which a position repeats is irrelevant because repeating a position three times is understood as not making progress in the game. There are enough things that give irreversible progress: captures and pawn moves (and more subtly, castling and en-passant opportunities). The threefold rule and the 50 moves rule are in the very same spirit.

"Sharing doubts" is not always in line with common sense. There are -4 downvotes on first post because OP firmly blames the software and claims "this is not a 3fold repetition", instead of asking "why is this a 3fold repetition, I don't understand, what am I missing". Not to mention the fact that reviewing the rules on your own, or looking for older threads on the matter, could have solved this as well. Probably better than the obscure "few people" you consulted (what sort of people are they?) Also the spacing of moves in which a position repeats is irrelevant because repeating a position three times is understood as not making progress in the game. There are enough things that give irreversible progress: captures and pawn moves (and more subtly, castling and en-passant opportunities). The threefold rule and the 50 moves rule are in the very same spirit.

nadjarostowa

#25

@Cedur216 said in #24:

The threefold rule and the 50 moves rule are in the very same

Note that for 3-fold repetition the castling rights are important - if you can castle in one position but not in the other, they are considered different. Same with having the possibility to capture en passant (can only be relevant in the first "repetition").

But castling does not reset the 50-move counter, which can be somewhat surprising.

@Cedur216 said in #24: > The threefold rule and the 50 moves rule are in the very same Note that for 3-fold repetition the castling rights are important - if you can castle in one position but not in the other, they are considered different. Same with having the possibility to capture en passant (can only be relevant in the first "repetition"). But castling does not reset the 50-move counter, which can be somewhat surprising.

spizzi77

#26

@Cedur216 said in #24:

"Sharing doubts" is not always in line with common sense. There are -4 downvotes on first post because OP firmly blames the software and claims "this is not a 3fold repetition", instead of asking "why is this a 3fold repetition, I don't understand, what am I missing".

Not to mention the fact that reviewing the rules on your own, or looking for older threads on the matter, could have solved this as well. Probably better than the obscure "few people" you consulted (what sort of people are they?)

Also the spacing of moves in which a position repeats is irrelevant because repeating a position three times is understood as not making progress in the game. There are enough things that give irreversible progress: captures and pawn moves (and more subtly, castling and en-passant opportunities). The threefold rule and the 50 moves rule are in the very same spirit.

But no, Cedur216 i didn't want to offend nobody, for sure, the title was quickly written for the doubt, under spelling "For me there is no repetition", for sure not to offend the platform, absolutely.

I've been playing chess at an amateur level with my uncle since I was little and I'm pretty good at it, and I know the rules, but I always thought the triple repetition happened in the subsequent moves. Obviously, when playing at an amateur level you focus on the last moves, but by sharing the post I discovered that the repetition rule applies throughout the game, so if a GM remembers the 5, 30, and 60th moves, which are the same, obviously it's almost impossible for that to happen, but you can claim a draw.

@Cedur216 said in #24: > "Sharing doubts" is not always in line with common sense. There are -4 downvotes on first post because OP firmly blames the software and claims "this is not a 3fold repetition", instead of asking "why is this a 3fold repetition, I don't understand, what am I missing". > > Not to mention the fact that reviewing the rules on your own, or looking for older threads on the matter, could have solved this as well. Probably better than the obscure "few people" you consulted (what sort of people are they?) > > Also the spacing of moves in which a position repeats is irrelevant because repeating a position three times is understood as not making progress in the game. There are enough things that give irreversible progress: captures and pawn moves (and more subtly, castling and en-passant opportunities). The threefold rule and the 50 moves rule are in the very same spirit. But no, Cedur216 i didn't want to offend nobody, for sure, the title was quickly written for the doubt, under spelling "For me there is no repetition", for sure not to offend the platform, absolutely. I've been playing chess at an amateur level with my uncle since I was little and I'm pretty good at it, and I know the rules, but I always thought the triple repetition happened in the subsequent moves. Obviously, when playing at an amateur level you focus on the last moves, but by sharing the post I discovered that the repetition rule applies throughout the game, so if a GM remembers the 5, 30, and 60th moves, which are the same, obviously it's almost impossible for that to happen, but you can claim a draw.

mkubecek

#27

@spizzi77 said in #26:

so if a GM remembers the 5, 30, and 60th moves, which are the same

Sigh... as already pointed out multiple times, the rule is about repeated positions, not moves.

@spizzi77 said in #26: > so if a GM remembers the 5, 30, and 60th moves, which are the same Sigh... as already pointed out multiple times, the rule is about repeated *positions*, not *moves*.