Hello All.
I'm not sure about the phrase "automatically withdrew". What probably happened
was that upon the third repetition the computer automatically claimed a draw by
repetition. This is quite normal particularly if the engine evaluated the
position as otherwise unfavourable for it. I would regard a 'withdrawal' as a
resignation'.
Draws by (threefold) repetition are actually quite frequent. The process of
formally claiming a draw by repetition is not so frequent as players generally
recognise the occurence and agree a draw anyway.
Four important factors.
1) The same side must be 'on the move' in all three position. Boris Spassky
erroneously agreed a draw against Bobby Fischer in their 20th match-game in
1972, yet on the third occasion it was a different player to move.
2) All the dynamic factors must be the same. For example if an en passant
capture, which must be played immediately, is applicable for the first repeat,
it can't possibly be applicable for the second and third. Castling is another
option. In Karpov-Miles, Tilburg 1976, Karpov incorrectly claimed a draw by
repetition in a position where Miles could still castle Queenside first time.
However, as Miles moved the Rook back and forth.he lost the right to castle and
this invalidated Karpov's claim. However, the players agreed a draw anyway.
Indeed Miles could have made the claim himself had the game gone one move
further.
3) The rule is about repetition of position, not repetition of moves. Although
it is usual for the same moves to be played to produce a three-time repetition
sometimes the sequence of moves may be different, not even necessarily
consecutive. There have even been positions where a pair of Rooks have swapped
position, which took several moves, and the repetition of occured some
half-dozen or so moves apart.
4) Finally, and this applies to over-the-board chess, in the event of an
incorrect claim there is a twofold penalty.
a) The player making the claim must take a five-minute loss on the clock. If
you have less than five minutes to the time-control or end of the game, then
the claimant loses on time. There have been cases of claimants losing their
nerve whilst the claim is being investigated and playing different moves
instead!
b) If the claim is rejected by the controller/arbiter then the claimant has to
play the move that they claim produced the repetion. This has caused the loss
of a defensible positions in Keene-Donoso, Haifa Olympiad 1976 and Keene went
on to make a final GM norm.
Please note that the circumstances under condition 4 are rare.
Finally twofold repetitions are frequent, especially for players in
time-trouble.
I hope this helps but please ask if further clarification is needed.
Regards,
Tyson
On 16 August 2018 at 18:52 mordue andrew <tyson.mordue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello All.
I'm not sure about the phrase "automatically withdrew". What probably
happened was that upon the third repetition the computer automatically drawed
a draw by repetition. This is quite normal particularly if the engine
evaluated the position as otherwise unfavourable for it. I would regard a
'withdrawal' as a resignation'.
Draws by (threefold) repetition are actually quite frequent. The process
of formally claiming a draw by repetition is not so frequent as players
generally recognise the occurence and agree a draw anyway.
Four important factors.
1) The same side must be 'on the move' in all three position. Boris
Spassky erroneously agreed a draw against Bobby Fischer in their 20th
match-game in 1972, yet on the third occasion it was a different player to
move.
2) All the dynamic factors must be the same. For example if an en passant
capture, which must be played immediately, is applicable for the first
repeat, it can't possibly be applicable for the second and third. Castling is
another option. In Karpov-Miles, Tilburg 1976, Karpov incorrectly claimed a
draw by repetition in a position where Miles could still castle Queenside
first time. However, as Miles moved the Rook back and forth.he lost the right
to castle and this invalidated Karpov's claim. However, the players agreed a
draw anyway. Indeed Miles could have made the claim himself had the game gone
one move further.
3) The rule is about repetition of position, not repetition of moves.
Although it is usual for the same moves to be played to produce a three-time
repetition sometimes the sequence of moves may be different, not even
necessarily consecutive. There have even been positions where a pair of Rooks
have swapped position, which took several moves, and the repetition of
occured some half-dozen or so moves apart.
4) Finally, and this applies to over-the-board chess, in the event of an
incorrect claim there is a twofold penalty.
a) The player making the claim must take a five-minute loss on the clock.
If you have less than five minutes to the time-control or end of the game,
then the claimant loses on time. There have been cases of claimants losing
their nerve whilst the claim is being investigated and playing different
moves instead!
b) If the claim is rejected by the controller/arbiter then the claimant
has to play the move that they claim produced the repetion. This has caused
the loss of a defensible positions in Keene-Donoso, Haifa Olympiad 1976 and
Keene went on to make a final GM norm.
Please note that the circumstances under condition 4 are rare.
Finally twofold repetitions are frequent, especially for players in
time-trouble.
I hope this helps but please ask if further clarification is needed.
Regards,
Tyson
On 16 August 2018 at 17:58 Elizabeth Koren <egk2303@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
Hi Y'all,
I have a very interesting question to ask.
The other day, my sister was playing chess with a computer
opponent. The computer automatically withdrew the game she was playing
because she repeatedly put the opponent in check with the same piece. She
says that the computer withdrew because of a
"Three-Fold Repetition."
I have never seen this before. Does this only happen with computer
games? Does it ever happen in real life? Is this a rule that I have never
seen before?
Elizabeth
>
