Can you claim a draw by threefold repetition if you have other options?

[~Eon~]

I was playing a friend in chess and very early in the game he claimed a draw by threefold repetition. I moved my queen up and put his king in check. He moved his king back into a dead end then I put him in check again with the same piece. He moved back and forth between the same two squares as I did with my queen and he claimed it was draw.

My argument was that he had other moves for example he could have moved his knight up as a shield or one of his pawns in the two check scenarios. I thought the purpose of the threefold repetition rule was to stop endless games but in this case it is obvious that he did not want to lose a valuable piece and the game was to early to become endless. Was the game a draw?

 

[frogoholic101]

If the same position occurs three times, no matter if there are other options available, either player may claim a draw. It isn't his fault that he didn't want to lose a valuable piece so much as it is your fault for forcing him into that situation.

 

[Flaccus]

In this year of our Lord, MMXIV,

Please, hope with me that what I post here is a worthwhile contribution, and not strictly a repetition of the comment of frogoholic101.

I did want to post a couple of resources for you, -Eon-:

The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by sequential repetition of moves)
a. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
b. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and color occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.
Positions are not [considered to be] 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. (FIDE 2005, Article 9.2)

The Wikipedia article on Threefold Repetition in Chess also has a short list of master level examples, and a short list of false claims of repetition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_repetition

You can also find the entirety of the FIDE Laws of Chess on-line: http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article


may Truth and Love prevail.

 

[~Eon~]

If the same position occurs three times, no matter if there are other options available, either player may claim a draw. It isn't his fault that he didn't want to lose a valuable piece so much as it is your fault for forcing him into that situation.

But what is the purpose of that rule? As the attacker I'm supposed to put the king in check until I can put the opponent in checkmate. The defender is obligated to get of check and avoid checkmate. A draw is claimed under the threefold rule because no progress is being made. So if the defender can make progress by getting out of check and losing a piece, shouldn't he be obligated to? It kinda seems like its abusing the rule to me.

 

[frogoholic101]

But what is the purpose of that rule? As the attacker I'm supposed to put the king in check until I can put the opponent in checkmate. The defender is obligated to get of check and avoid checkmate. A draw is claimed under the threefold rule because no progress is being made. So if the defender can make progress by getting out of check and losing a piece, shouldn't he be obligated to? It kinda seems like its abusing the rule to me.

The purpose of the rule is to prevent exactly the situation that you were in; that is, stalling, and by extension, to stop endless games. It's not an abuse of the rule at all; you want him to lose a piece when he has another (better) move available and he doesn't want to lose that piece. The situation would be different if you could force a situation where you could win a piece, but you can't.

Here, try and see the difference: you can make progress by stopping this series of moves and doing something else in your situation. Why shouldn't you be obligated to?

It is in your opponent's best interests not to lose material needlessly, hence he'll accept a draw, whereas in your situation your best interest is to win, which means you don't want this draw. Hence the best option wasn't for you to keep putting him in check, but to move onto something else. By the way, you're not meant to put the king in check, you're meant to put it in checkmate. Check is simply a means to this end, and there is no reason for putting someone in check needlessly.

Since you aren't playing to your win condition, and your opponent is forced to play contrary to his (by moving out of check all the time) the game is a draw.

 

[Sabaku]

To add on to what frogoholic said, you could easily contrive a position where if either side avoids perpetual, they can end up much worse. In that case, both players' 'win' condition would be to draw by perpetual / threefold repetition.

 

[~Eon~]

To add on to what frogoholic said, you could easily contrive a position where if either side avoids perpetual, they can end up much worse. In that case, both players' 'win' condition would be to draw by perpetual / threefold repetition.

That doesn't make sense how is a tie a win condition? I don't know maybe you guys have a different perspective if you play in official tournaments but I only play chess with my friends and against computer software so tying has no meaning to me. I feel that a game should only be a tie if the game becomes endless or in case of stalemate.

 

[frogoholic101]

If you can force a draw and you're several pieces behind, or in an awful position (such that you'll get checkmated in a few moves) then that's your new 'win' condition (hence the inverted commas). Basically, you're still doing the best you can.
The alternative to calling your scenario a draw is literally to keep playing forever, unless you do something differently. And it has to be you, since he has something to lose by doing something differently (a piece) and hence won't do something differently.

 

[Sabaku]

That doesn't make sense how is a tie a win condition?

I said it was a 'win' condition. As I explained, repeating the position is their best move since otherwise, they'd have a worse position.