Home

By International Master Jimmy Liew

A Draw is not a draw

In the last column, I talked about draws by agreement and why I think this is such a senseless rule . There are other ways that the game can end in a draw where both players are not necessarily agreeable to the draw.

One of the least understood draw is the three-fold repetition. FIDE Laws of Chess, Article 9.2 states

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 a 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,

B)    or 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 colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer in this manner be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently.

Put up your hands, those of you who understood that paragraph on the first reading. Now, put your hand down and stop lying to yourself, OK?

You can claim a draw in (A) if the move you are about to make results in a repetition of the same position for the third time. In (B) , your opponent made the move that resulted in the repetition. In both cases, you should not make your move, but lodge a claim with the arbiter. You lose the right to make a claim if you make a move without a first staking a claim.

Many times, when there is a claim for this type of draw, I observe the arbiter examine the claimaint’s score sheet and accept or reject the claim. This really sets me off. Arbiters should not do impressions of being able to play blindfold chess. The correct procedure should be to set up a separate board and play through the score-sheet of the claimant. The claimant can then point out the positions which

As chessplayers, we should  understand the rules which  governs the game of chess. It is the duty of chess arbiters to be very familiar with the rules but frequently FIDE rules are quite difficult to understand and well, arbiters are human too and can make mistakes.

All these were quite evident during one of my games at the recent Dato’ Arthur Tan Open. My opponent (let’s call him Hiro, but that’s not his real name) made several draw offers during the game which I rejected. We reached an ending where I had an extra piece but all my pawns were about to be exchanged off. As I was in time trouble, I made a repetition of moves to gain time to think. Hiro offered a draw claiming a three-fold repetition had taken place. I refused, firstly I was moving a lightning speed and really had no idea whether a repetition had indeed taken place. Secondly, I am a piece up! You mean those two capital letters in front of my name means nothing? Why not just reach across the board and slap me in the face?

Hiro started looking around for the arbiter,could not see one nearby. Not wanting to lose time on his clock, he made his move and went to search for an arbiter. In his absence, I made my move quickly as I had less than two minutes left.

The arbiters duly came and the comedy started in earnest. Did your opponent offer a draw, she asked? You don’t agree? Obviously. Why else would she be standing there otherwise?

He is claiming three times repetition, she continued. I shrugged my shoulders and continued to think about the position on the board. It was obvious she had no idea how to handle the situation. She consulted with Hiro who pointed out the moves which caused the repetition. Our heroine did her blind-fold chess routine. Yes, draw here and here and here, she goes. It’s draw, please sign the score-sheet now.

Whoa! All this time, I was slightly amused by the antics of this arbiter. You could see she was stressed out. I was still kind of detached from the situation as part of me was analyzing the position looking for a win. But this arbiter was trying to bulldoze me into drawing, perhaps to cover up for lack of knowledge of the rules.

I told her firmly I disputed the claim and insisted that the moves be played out. That bought me some more time. A board was set up and we went through Hiro’s score-sheet, mine being totally indecipherable even to me. Indeed there was a repetition. And this was where I brought out the ace. Hiro had already made the move that caused the third repetition. You cannot claim a draw on a position that occurred in the past which is what Article 9.2 (A) means.

Another assistant arbiter appeared with the FIDE Handbook and the three arbiters went through the appropriate section. Finally all three agreed that the claim was invalid and decided the game should resume. And by this time, I had found a line, which gave me the winning possibility. I won the game.