Talk:Threefold repetition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Threefold repetition article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Old talk

In another amusing game, one of the players claimed a draw by repetition which his opponent disputed by saying that in the previous instances of the postion the positions of the two white rooks had been interchanged! What followed was a painstaking replay of the game by tournament officials on an alternate board to verify the claim.

I have removed this, as even if this very unlikely situation were to occur, such an interchange of rooks would not be an issue under modern FIDE rules. To quote part of article 9.2 of the FIDE laws of chess (see [1]):

Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered 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.

Note in particular the part I have italicised. It does not say "the same pieces occupy the same squares" but rather "pieces of the same kind and colour". Therefore, even if such an interchange of rooks as described occured in a game, a draw could still be claimed.

I suspect, therefore, that the story is apocryphal. If it really did occur, the game must have been played under some other ruleset (or the arbiters were incompetent, which wouldn't really make it worth mentioning in the article). If this is so, there should be a note of explanation saying under what rules this incident occured, and that under current FIDE rules it would not. I think the story could also do with a source, as it sounds rather unlikely to me.

I also have my doubts about the Karpov - Miles story. Do we know when and where this game was played, or do we at least have a source for the story? A quick check through my database (which is not completely comprehensive, but which is pretty large) turns up no games between the two where this sort of thing happened. --Camembert

Hi,
Totally sure about the Karpov-Miles game. I remember that I read it in the "Chess Mate" magazine, so I could find the reference, but I have something like 200 copies of the mag, which would take hours, so I'm unwilling to do it.
About the other game, it was some local tournament in India; either my memory is wrong or the arbiters were incompetent, either way, as you say, it shouldn't be in the article.
Arvindn 13:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No problem on Karpov-Miles - if you're sure it's right, I believe you. Do you have any idea about what year it happened, roughly? I want to try and track down the score (it would be good to quote in the article). --Camembert

Aha! I think I've found it: Karpov-Miles, Tilburg 1986 [2]. I'll add the reference to the article. --Camembert

Wow, nice find :) Still, I have a lingering doubt: I seem to remember that it was Karpov who had lost the right to castle, whereas in the game you gave it is Miles! (and therefore the article is inconsistent as it stands.) Miles is apprently a jolly guy, is there a chance of emailing him or something? :) Arvindn 15:34, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ah, good point. Should've noticed that really. I'll take the reference back out for the time being, and see if I can dig up something more comprehensive. No chance of mailing Miles, I'm afraid - he died a couple of years ago - but I'll have a poke around and see if I can come up with anything. We'll get this sorted out eventually, I'm sure :) --Camembert
Oh, sorry, didn't know Miles died, about 7 years since I played tournaments; haven't kept up with news since then. Yes, it'd be real nice to get this sorted out :) -- Arvindn 15:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You were right - It was indeed Tilburg 1986. So that issue is resolved :) [3] -- Arvindn 09:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Castling - temporary

The article says "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. "

I don't see any way for the right to castle being changed temporarily if the position is the same. If that is correct, "temporarily" should be removed from that sentence. Bubba73 (talk), 23:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karpov-Miles

According to Chessgames, Karpov had white, so it was Miles' king that could castle in the first of the three positions. The article says it was Karpov's king. Chessgames.com is probably right. Bubba73 (talk), 01:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed it from Karpov to Black. Another thing, in the position shown, with the moves I got from ChessGames, under the rules, it should have been Black that was claiming the draw, not White (Karpov). Right?? Bubba73 (talk), 03:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it depends on whether the last move shown was the one written on the scoresheet and shown to the director, and if it was actually made on the board. Bubba73 (talk), 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karpov-Miles, Tilburg 1986, position after 22. Nb5

As far as I know, it is impossible to have a white pawn on the A row. Is there something wrong with this game? Erikina 09:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That was an error, I fixed it. Bubba73 (talk), 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alekhine-Lasker analysis

Can someone check the ref for that game to make sure this story is correct. It seems to me that Alekhine is winning this game quite handsomely, so I suppose he offered the draw? And the analysis cannot be right (even if it is as it reads): after 16. ...Qe8, White has Qh7#! Did they mean 16. ... f5? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There was an error in the position, should be a black knight on f6 instead of a pawn. Probably my error; thank you for pointing it out. Bubba73 (talk), 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Actually, I messed up f6 inadvertently when I tried to fix the position before (when Lasker's King was on e6!): when playing through the moves, I captured on f6 rather than h6 on Alekhine's 13th. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, you can take credit for the f6 error and I'll take credit for the two prior errors. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 14:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fischer - Petrosian

History entry says, "...at first Pet did not even understand what was going on, and it was only when Schmid ... that the ex-champion began studying his scoresh)"

That sounds to me more like that Petrosian was surprised, not that he didn't know the rule.

Would you be able to provide a fuller quote? I still find it very hard to believe Petrosian was ignorant of the rule. He might have been taken by surprise by the claim (I've often seen people surprised by a 3-fold repetition claim), but that is very different from being ignorant that such a rule exists. Peter Ballard 04:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the last sentence of the paragraph. I wrote the part up to that point. The two sources are almost identical in their wording.

At first Petrosian did not even understand what was going on, and it was only when the arbiter went behind the stage to check the position on a spare set that the ex-champion began studying his scoresheet. Fischer jumped up and followed the arbiter to make sure of the draw as soon as possible. Petrosian was distressed by the result...

I think he was just surprised by the rule, not ignorant of it. I didn't write the part about it being his first encounter with the rule, and I don't know where that came from, or if it is an assumption by an editor. Bubba73 (talk), 04:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I get it. He was taken by surprise by the draw claim. Perhaps a slight reword is in order.
It happens all the time down at my level. I remember, many years ago in the days of adjournments, I helped a friend analyse a win in a difficult ending against a strong opponent (a future IM). But what happened was that they made about one move each and his opponent claimed a 3-fold repetition. It had not occured to either of us to check the scoresheet for that possibility. Petrosian's reaction sounds quite similar to that of my friend. Peter Ballard 04:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Petrosian himself said it was the first 3-fold repetition of his career, but doesn't say whether he knew the rule. If you look for the book Russians v Fischer on Amazon.com, the text is searchable. Searching for "studying his scoresheet" will direct you to page 284. You can look at the discussion of the game on pages 283 through 285.
(p. 283) Petrosian: "But for the first time in my life I ran into a three-fold repetition of position..." (elipses in source text)
(p. 284) Baturinsky: "When Fischer asked the arbiter to come over and told him in English that with his next move 34 Qe2 he was claiming a draw, at first Petrosian did not even understand what was going on,"
It seems that it was a combination of unfamiliarity with 3-fold repetition and English that caused Petrosian's confusion. P.S. I highly recommend Russians versus Fischer for anyone interested in Fischer. Quale 04:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. But Amazon will not let me view the page because I've never made a purchase from them. Peter Ballard 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the amazon suggestion wasn't as helpful as I hoped. You both are almost surely correct that Petrosian was familiar with the rule. Repeating moves/positions was a common way to gain time on the clock before adjournment, and Petrosian would have had many years experience with it. Since the current wording in the article is a little unclear, maybe it should instead say that Petrosian was surprised or caught off guard by the draw claim. Quale 14:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
He may have been caught off gaurd by the fact that the intermediate moves/positions were different. Bubba73 (talk), 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Certainly he must have been familiar with the rule, because he started studying his scoresheet, as if to check. He must have just been surprized that it came up. Bubba73 (talk), 04:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter (or anyone), yes it would probably be a good idea to reword it. Bubba73 (talk), 11:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fischer-Petrosian, move 33

Plisetsky & Voronkov, Kasparov, and ChessBase give 33. Qh5 but ChessGames.com gives 33. Qd3, as the article was recently changed. 33. Qd3 is certainly plausable, and may have contributed to Petrosian's failure to recognize the repetition. What is the correct white move 33? Bubba73 (talk), 04:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the disucssion at ChessGames, it quotes a book by Petrosian in Spanish that gives 32...Re5 33 Qd3 Rd5, draw. Bubba73 (talk), 05:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, ChessBase gives moves 32 and 33 as duplicates of 30 and 31 (queen moves instead of the rook moves). The two books above give the same as the article currently has, except for 33. Qh5 instead of 33. Qd3. Bubba73 (talk), 05:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Chess Life, Nov 1971, page 619, gives 32. Qe2 Re5 33. Qd3 Rd5 34 Qe2 draw. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Chess Life, December 1971, page 682 agrees with the moves, and comments

Petrosian did not seem to realize that he was allowing a three-time repetition of the position. Of course, what is confusing is that, in reaching the same position three times, Black's move was different each time, but tht has no effect onthe position repeated. Nor did it have any effect on Bobby whonoticed it right away."

. So I believe that 33. Qd3 is correct, not Qh5 as in the two books and in ChessBase. Bubba73 (talk), 18:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)