question re blitz chess draw by repetition

[donaldheron]

Can a draw be claimed in blitz chess for a three fold (or more - say 60) repeats of same position with same player to move?

[Andy Howie]

Yes but if the arbiter is not watching it, proving it might be tricky

[hamish olson]

interesting, one of our players got flagged today because his opponent repeated the position something around 10 times (I wasn't there so this is hearsay!). What should he have done?

[Andy McCulloch]

Pause the clock, call an arbiter to observe, then see what opponent does.
When I was very new to chess, I had an opponent in an allegro who repeated the position 4 or 5 times. I said that's a draw isn't it? His reply was 'prove it'. Without the repetition I had a forced mate. Stupidly I tried another move and subsequently lost.
I now know that I should have paused the clock, called an arbiter to observe play, and got at least the draw.
It pays to know the rules.
Difficult in blitz though.

[donaldheron]

interesting, one of our players got flagged today because his opponent repeated the position something around 10 times (I wasn't there so this is hearsay!). What should he have done?

I may have been that opponent. Sorry, I was wrong: I was wrong because this is what the abiter told me in the previous round - that the draw by repetition rule does not apply in blitz. Now that I know that it does then I would not do this again. In the previous round I stopped the clock and claimed a draw and had witness evidence and who knows if my opponent would have confirmed if he had been asked. What happened was that both my opponent and then the abiter said that you cannot claim a draw by repetition in blitz. I will not do it again. I will not play blitz again.

[Adam Bremner]

interesting, one of our players got flagged today because his opponent repeated the position something around 10 times (I wasn't there so this is hearsay!). What should he have done?

I may have been that opponent. Sorry, I was wrong: I was wrong because this is what the abiter told me in the previous round - that the draw by repetition rule does not apply in blitz. Now that I know that it does then I would not do this again. In the previous round I stopped the clock and claimed a draw and had witness evidence and who knows if my opponent would have confirmed if he had been asked. What happened was that both my opponent and then the abiter said that you cannot claim a draw by repetition in blitz. I will not do it again. I will not play blitz again.

It was not you, although it seems there was confusion in a few games.

[Andy Howie]

I think I understand the confusion. There are 2 sets of rules for blirz / lightning on the CS site. One is the FIDE rules (where clai s are allowed) and a CS set where they are not. I tend to default to FIDE rules

[andyburnett]

I think I understand the confusion. There are 2 sets of rules for blirz / lightning on the CS site. One is the FIDE rules (where clai s are allowed) and a CS set where they are not. I tend to default to FIDE rules

Should we change the CS blitz/lightning rules to fall into line with FIDE's then? Any downsides?

[Ken_Stewart]

First, I’m not sure what CS rule Andy is referring to; that was not relevant to my decisions on Sunday. However, we should start with the FIDE Law for Blitz which allows for two situations, the ideal one being:

The Competition Rules shall apply if
a. one arbiter supervises one game and
b. each game is recorded by the arbiter or his assistant and, if possible, by electronic means.

Under these conditions, it would be possible to claim a draw by repetition in a blitz game. This clearly could not apply at the Team Lightning. I consider that it follows that when responsible for 40 games the arbiter cannot be expected to follow any one to the extent of watching for repetitions or 50-move rule draws, etc. Claims for these would therefore lack the necessary proof. The ethics of playing for a win by “negative” means are a different issue.

The solution is of course to move to the use of a time limit with increments, such as 3 minutes + 2 seconds per move; that will come in due course.

[donaldheron]

First, I’m not sure what CS rule Andy is referring to; that was not relevant to my decisions on Sunday. However, we should start with the FIDE Law for Blitz which allows for two situations, the ideal one being:

The Competition Rules shall apply if
a. one arbiter supervises one game and
b. each game is recorded by the arbiter or his assistant and, if possible, by electronic means.

Under these conditions, it would be possible to claim a draw by repetition in a blitz game. This clearly could not apply at the Team Lightning. I consider that it follows that when responsible for 40 games the arbiter cannot be expected to follow any one to the extent of watching for repetitions or 50-move rule draws, etc. Claims for these would therefore lack the necessary proof. The ethics of playing for a win by “negative” means are a different issue.

The solution is of course to move to the use of a time limit with increments, such as 3 minutes + 2 seconds per move; that will come in due course.

Thank you Ken: I thought it was me but I could not find a CS rule either. I think your reply confirms Andy's original answer because there are many situations where, ideally, an arbiter ocerlooks each game. The fact that, practically, we cannot do that does not invalidate any other rule such as illegal move. That is to say if a player makes an illegal move and his opponent claims the game the opponent could be dishonest and deny that he had done so: this would not mean that you cannot claim for illegal move. I would suggest that draw by repetition is the same. Of course, all this is now purely academic for me as I find the whole idea of playing blitz again to be repulsive. Perhaps banning blitz as a form of chess is the best solution.