English Chess Forum

This question has been asked on Facebook and is getting a variety of answers. What do we think?

A player properly claims a draw by repetition - writes the intended move on his scoresheet, stops the clock and informs the arbiter of his claim.

The arbiter asks the opponent if he wishes to accept the implied draw offer. The opponent says he'lll think about it. What should the arbiter do?

Arbiter can ask opponent if he agrees it's threefold repetition (to save time), if he gets the answer above, then he'll have to look at the scoresheets.

At the recent Wells event, I wrote down the repeating move (Rc7), pointed to c7, and my opponent glanced at her scoresheet, nodded and we shook hands. That doesn't exactly follow the laws, but seemed to work.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 13, 2025 1:14 pm

Arbiter can ask opponent if he agrees it's threefold repetition (to save time), if he gets the answer above, then he'll have to look at the scoresheets.

The confusion has arisen because of some at best unhelpful, and at worst, wrong, advice in the Arbiter's Manual.

It says "If a player claims a draw, the opponent has the possibility to agree immediately to the draw. In this case the arbiter does not need to check the correctness of the claim." and "If the opponent chooses to check the claim, the [draw] offer loses its validity."

The second quote is wrong because it's not the opponent checking the claim, it's the arbiter. If we assume that it should have said "If the arbiter starts checking the claim, the [draw] offer loses its validity." then it doesn't say what should happen if the opponent has neither accepted nor rejected the draw offer.

Some people think the opponent has to make an immediate decision on whether or not to accept the draw offer and cannot choose to think about it. There's nothing in the rules saying that. There's also nothing in the rules saying that if the arbiter starts checking the claim, the opponent can no longer accept the draw offer.

With your answer, the next question to ask is what happens with the clock? The opponent has said he wants to think about the draw offer, the clocks are stopped and the move that would have to be played if the claim is wrong is not yet on the board. Should the opponent get some free thinking time to consider the draw offer or not?

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 13, 2025 1:14 pm

That doesn't exactly follow the laws, but seemed to work.

If the players are being cooperative, then anything works ( provided no arbiter is watching ).

I once sat next to a 4NCL game where the players agreed three time repetition had occurred and were discussing the correct method of ending the game. They formed a plan and summoned an arbiter to ask whether they had got it right. He said they hadn't, so they played a few more moves before one of them offered a draw and the other accepted. Weird.

I have been playing competitive chess for over five decades and have to confess that I don't know the formal procedure. I usually find my opponent only too willing to accept the draw on the third repetition. I am an average club player. I like to believe that a professional player in a FIDE rated tournament knows the procedure. But I guess that's not always so.

What is the reason that you have to make the claim before making the move? Why does it matter if you make the move and claim the draw?

Aside from the very very rare exceptions where someone is actually trying to win and accidentally blunders into a threefold the whole process seems ridiculously overcomplicated and litigious for what is effectively an unspoken draw agreement - watching the arbiters painfully scrutinising the scoresheets at the world cup as though professional grand masters might have made an erroneous claim made it look easier to arrange an intentional peace treaty then a simple draw in a game!

It gets awkward in rapidplay or blitz even with increment. I have seen plenty of games where a player with an attack with a perpetual check in reserve has repeated a position more than three times to gain time on the clock to try to work out a win. My understanding of the FIDE laws is that the "defending" player can request a scoresheet to start writing down moves, but that involves stopping the clock and finding an arbiter, which completely breaks the flow of a game down to increment. What happens if the "attacking player" refuses to accept the stopping of the clock to do this? The only answer is for an arbiter to be watching, but usually there are so many games going on, an arbiter can't just focus on a single game. Unfortunately, I have lost rapidplay games on five second increment when opponents have moved, pressed the clock and offered a draw in my time, one of them even extending his hand across the board! I didn't call an arbiter, partly because that looks like being a bad loser, but also because how would I prove it?

As Nick Faulks says, it relies on sportsmanship and good chess etiquette from both players.

I believe on DGT boards, the boards themselves can monitor threefold and fivefold repetitions along with fifty and seventy five move counts. You still need an arbiter to ask the right questions of the display software.

My opponent didn't claim anything, but on my second relatively recent game where I had to demonstrate the mate with Bishop and Knight, I may have come perilously close to a 50 move count with the odd false step. The same record a move process is supposed to apply to fifty move claims as well as repetition.

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 01, 2025 4:05 pm

What is the reason that you have to make the claim before making the move? Why does it matter if you make the move and claim the draw?

Indeed, why can't you just make a move, stop the clock and say we're here for the third time.

I once asked Stewart Reuben, who knew these things, and he offered an explanation of the genesis of this rule which just about made sense at the time. Unfortunately, I was unable to reconstruct it later and now of course I cannot ask him again.

One reason for this is that it removes the possibility of the opponent making a reply and claiming that you never claimed or only claimed after he had replied when you realised how good his position now is!

Alex McFarlane wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 01, 2025 8:43 pm

One reason for this is that it removes the possibility of the opponent making a reply and claiming that you never claimed or only claimed after he had replied when you realised how good his position now is!

Yes, that was it. I replied that surely having stopped the clock covered that. But what if he makes his next move before you have had time to stop the clock? That was the point at which I became unconvinced.

Apologies to Stewart's memory if I am misrepresenting him.

Trying hard not to get involved in a pointless debate (arguably the best kind!).

The logic seems to be to prevent the equivalent of the did he/didn't he touch move dispute. By claiming before moving there is no possibility of the opponent realistically insisting that the claim was too late and made after they had replied. I would also point out that the Laws allow an opponent to reply before the clock is pressed. It would therefore be possible for an opponent unintentionally to stop such a repetition claim, especially if they were short of time.

Alex McFarlane wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 02, 2025 2:58 pm

By claiming before moving there is no possibility of the opponent realistically insisting that the claim was too late and made after they had replied

I think there are still two different ways of claiming. If it was your opponent who played a move that repeated the position, you just make a claim to that effect. If you are about to play a move that repeats, you are supposed to write it down and then announce an intention to play it. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work in Blitz or Rapidplay or with less than five minutes and an increment less than 30 seconds, or no increment at all.

Does it still count as draw offer if the claim is found not to be valid?

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 02, 2025 3:13 pm

If it was your opponent who played a move that repeated the position, you just make a claim to that effect. If you are about to play a move that repeats, you are supposed to write it down and then announce an intention to play it.

To be consistent you should have to stop the clock and announce that you think the opponent is about to repeat the position.