♡ 23 ( +1 | -1 ) Draw by threefold repitition ??I thought I knew what it was, but what I THOUGHT it was happened in one of my games, and it was not a draw. I will not post the link because that game is not over yet, but can someone tell me what draw by threefold repitition means? Thank you
♡ 68 ( +1 | -1 ) Just checkedthe game to which I think you refer. It seems that you were still in a position to castle when you first moved the king...that position cannot count. The relevant clause in the rules being..
Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently.
There was a famous game Kasparov/Miles when this occured. Kasparov claimed a draw, Miles checked his sheet and disovered that the first position allowed for castling. The clock was running down, Miles enjoyed the moment then agreed on a draw. :-)
♡ 28 ( +1 | -1 ) that makes senseThank you for your help. I have another question: If one of the pieces participating in this threefold repitition draw was once killing another piece, but in the other two postitions it wasn't...or if in one of the positions it is check, but in the other two it isn't check.....is it still a draw ?
♡ 101 ( +1 | -1 ) I don't understand your exampleAfter 22. Rxb4 the answer 22. - Kb3 is against chess rules. The same applies for moves #27 and #34.
It is impossible that the same position (needed for threefold repetition) occurs, but in one position a King is checked and in another he is not. Just imagine someone makes a photograph of the board at these three positions - it's always check or never, and the photograph shows if or if not.
I agree with leo_london concerning your other question. The "history" (= how was this position created) is not interesting for the decision "threefold repetition or not" if both players have the same choices in all three positions. This may not be visible on the photographs (privileges to castle or privilege to capture en passant), but is important because the choices differ. The last move is only important if it causes such an (invisible) choice, the historical event "capture-move" does not generate/prevent such a choice. So it is not important for this rule.
Sounds a bit like a mathematical proof, mines mostly are either too short or not understandable. I hope this is an exception.
♡ 37 ( +1 | -1 ) bad exampleYou're right about the example, I can't believe I didn't notice how wrong it was myself....but at least you understood me..... Yes, I understood everything you said; your explanation of why en passant and the 'stop-castling' thing is not considered in this rule while capturing a piece can still be part of a threefold repitition made the rule much clearer to me. Thank you both very much.
♡ 20 ( +1 | -1 ) Despite the bad example......the guts of your query is clear. Substitute ...Kc3 for Kb3, and it would be a draw. The captured piece is immaterial. What is important is the position after White (in this game) has completed the move. Cheers, Ion
♡ 48 ( +1 | -1 ) The non-check......I assumed to be a typo, and that a check was intended. By the way, recall that the rule involves repetition of position, not of moves. The ability or not to castle, or to capture en passant, are positional features, and are to be taken into consideration. So is whose move it is (I've seen that happen!). I'm not sure whether it was part of yr query, luckypawn, but the 3-fold repetition applies whenever the position recurs (or is about to recur in OTB) 3 times; it doesn't have to be 3 times in succession. Hope this helps... Cheers, Ion
♡ 71 ( +1 | -1 ) An addition ...About 3 fold repetition : Being the same position does not mean that precisely the same pieces must occupy the same squares ... rather that the same KIND of piece must appear upon the same square each time. This means that the rule does not differentiate between a "KingKnight" and "QueensKnight" nor K-Rook and Q-Rook. So if a position was otherwise identical, but the two rooks or two knights traded places with each other, it would still count as a repetition, when all other factors are met. At least this is the way it has been in otb play, so I'm assuming that GK has followed suit. (But if not, it would be good to know of any example to the contrary anyone has seen) }8-)
♡ 135 ( +1 | -1 ) Wait a minuteThank you all for your help, but I'm still not sure I grasped the idea completely, in fact, I think I have some wrong ideas.... 21)R(on e6)to b6 K(from c3)to c4 22)Rxb4+ Kc3 23)Ra4 Kb3 24)Rb4+ Kc3 25)Ra4 Kd3 26)Rb4 Kc3
Can moves 22, 24, and 26 be considered a threefold repitition, and end in a draw ? Or does the king have to originally be coming from the same space ? This is a way a move can be repeated three times having only some of them with a check, but perhaps I understand the rule wrong, and this is not a right example... ionadowman, you said it's after white's play that the draw occurs, why is that ? I thought that the fact that each time the move is ending with a rook being put on a4, and a king right after that on c3, means a repitition...or do they have to originally be coming from the same space each time, which doesn't happen in my example ?
That is to say, what exactly do we look for in a threefold repitition ?
I do understand (either before or after these helpful posts) that the moves don't have to be in succesion, that en passant and castling-affecting cannot be part of a draw by threefold repitition, and that it doesn't have to be the same knight, for instance, each time participating. What I don't seem to understand is the concept of 'the position' occuring three times rather than 'the move', this seems to be the key problem....
♡ 118 ( +1 | -1 ) Oops, sorry....I should have said 'after Black's move'. I can understand your confusion. Your clarification makes your question clearer, and the situation after Black's move constitutes a 3rd repetition. It is the position that is critical, not the moves that create it. By the way, in OTB play, Black would have to claim the draw before playing 26...Kc3 - stating that this is the intended move. The grounds for the claim are that as a result of the move the a position has been created that has occurred twice already. All of the features of the position - number, location, and capability of the pieces - are identical. The moves that led to the position - checks, non-checks etc are immaterial in terms of the position itself. Bear in mind that the repetition does not have to be sequential as it is in your later example. That itself should indicate that the moves creating the position need not be the same. Consider this skeleton position: WBe4, WRa2, BKb5 1.Bc6+ Kb4 2.Rb2+ Kc4 3.Ra2 Kb4 4.Rb2+ Kc3 5.Ra2 Kb4 draw by repetition of position. I have deliberately given different responses to the checks at move 2 and 4 to emphasise a further point, that it doesn't matter what even Black plays to recreate the recurring position.
♡ 249 ( +1 | -1 ) definition of "position"I will try it:
A position (for the threefold repetition rule) in a chess game is the photograph of the board with all the tokens on it with additional information telling - which player is to move next - which player(s) still have the castling privilege - if the next move can be an "en-passant"-capture (if yes: which pawn can be captured by that).
Of course, if the photograph is taken during the castling process (with white King already on g1 and the rook still on h1) this is not a position because it is taken DURING a move.
Luckypawn's example (move 21 - 26) is a draw because - the positions AFTER (Black's) moves 22, 24 and 26 are always wRb4 and bKc3 - in all these positions it is White's turn - none of the other conditions (en passant and castling) have changed. Those are the criteria you asked for ("what exactly do we look for in a threefold repetition?"), ALL of these three conditions have to be met.
This position causing the draw has no check (rook on b4 and King on c3), not in move 22, 24 and 26! And it is absolute impossible that one position contains a check and another meeting these repetition rule does not - think of the photograph. You are correct, it is not important that the white King came from different spaces to get to c3.
GK automatically draws a game if these three conditions are met (or asks the player after his move if he would like to claim the draw - that would be Black after his move #26) - I don't know exactly. In OTB a player loses every privilege after his move (when starting his opponent's clock), this covers mainly claiming or offering draws. So Black must announce after White's move #26 that his move 26. - Kc3 would cause the same position for the third time and that he therefore claims the draw. If he moves 26. - Kc3 and hits the clock, it is White's choice to claim a draw (with 27. Ra4) or keep on playing.
Just to make things more complicated (I am very good in that!): This given definition of "position" is only useful for the threefold-repetition-rule. Some additional information is needed to cover a "general position definition": - how many moves have been made since the latest pawn move or capture (important for the 50-moves-rule) - which positions (meeting the definition for the repetition rule) have been ocurred so far and how often (exactly that subject is what the thread is discussing).
ccmcacollister's problem (how is the exchange of two rooks handled in GK?) is worth further investigations. I hope to get a result soon. Stay tuned!
♡ 9 ( +1 | -1 ) ionadownmanOur posts have crossed. It took quite some time to write mine.
♡ 55 ( +1 | -1 ) Attention Please ... :) misato and I are doing an unrated games test of the Question of N's or R's being interchanged ... whether the GK system will still count it as a rep when the other identical piece is used instead of the first piece. And we can then provide the board links here for those 2 games, to demonstrate this. And just show a couple of 3 time rep position examples to view at the end (assuming the system accepts the use of identical piece, as OTB Rules do accept.) * * * }8-) We'll get back on this when completed.
♡ 24 ( +1 | -1 ) thanks again to everyone...for the time and patience. I finally understand all the rules associated with the draw by threefold repitition, and the reasons they were made. ccmcacollister and misato: Good idea about the expirement you are doing, I will follow up and see how it goes.
♡ 167 ( +1 | -1 ) Two sample games ... misato and I did two unrated test games to see if GK would recognize a three time repeat of position when it was created by pieces that were of the same kind, tho not the same actual piece, being in the same places. One game shows that Knights can be interchanged. The other that Rooks can be interchanged. The following message is what appears when a move is made that recreates the same position for the third time. It appears to the player who has just repeated, after he submits the repeating move. (The message only appears when the 3rd repetitionis actually made in the game. It does not appear if you happen to make a Conditional Move sequence that would repeat a third time, while you are entering the sequence you are offering. In that case no idication is made to the conditional move offerer. I assume that if you offered a conditional sequence where your opponent would have a move in it that made a three time rep , and he actually made that move in the game, that he would be offered the chance of a draw, even if the sequence went beyond that move?! But dont know that for sure. Someone might want to test THAT out :) The message you get in a game: "The current position on the board was repeated three times, therefore this game can be declared a draw. Would you like to declare a draw? YES! NO! " *** The games are board #4140153 and board #4140805
♡ 82 ( +1 | -1 ) additional infoemail notification: ============= When Craig entered the move creating the key position for the third time he apparently triggered the normal email notification (e.g. an email "It's your turn against ..." was sent to me). I got another email three minutes later telling me "Game finished: draw by threefold repetition" - triggered by his decision to hit "YES" and claim the draw. This pair of messages was confusing on first glance.
conditional moves: ============== I just entered a line of moves in a current game ending with checkmate (although I don't believe it will be played). The final move is marked with a "+" (check) instead of a "#" (checkmate). So it is understandable that the conditional feature more than ever neglects the (more complicated) threefold-repetition-rule. See the similar thread in this forum raised by alice02.
♡ 61 ( +1 | -1 ) Conditional movesIf you put conditional moves that lead to checkmate, they put the checkmate sign # on your last move on the list of the game moves IF your player does the moves that lead to checkmate. But if you just put them as conditional moves, the sign won't come out, unless your opponent plays the fatal moves. That happened in one of my games.
I expect that conditional moves shouldn't change any of the chess rules, and therefore the draw by threefold repitition oppurtunity should be given to you if your opponent puts conditional moves that lead to one. But as it never happened to me, I can't be certain.
♡ 8 ( +1 | -1 ) ...No surprises there, but a worthwhile practical exercise to confirm theory! Cheers, Ion