what is "DRAW" after 3 repeats??

May I ask of the exepreinced among us when trying to understand the apparent 'absurd' rule of a player able to claim a "DRAW" after three same moves -although not neccessarily three in a row??!!!

What a rude rule when they don't even have to be consecutive..or am I misunderstanding this rule??

Come on members-when do you apply this rule??

it's like the difference between concurrent and consecutive.

If the position, not moves, is about to be repeated three times, yes one may claim a draw. "In a row" makes no difference at all. Dynamic possibilities count here: en passant and castling potentials must match as well, e.g. a rook that has moved may return to its original position, and may seem to match earlier positions, but the inability to castle breaks the match when it existed in the earlier positions.

This draw rule is called Draw by Repetition of Position.

In chess and some other abstract strategy games, the threefold repetition rule (also known as repetition of position) states that a player can claim a draw if the same position occurs three times, or will occur after their next move, with the same player to move. The repeated positions need not occur in succession. The idea behind the rule is that if the position is repeated three times, no progress is being made.

In chess, in order for a position to be considered the same, each player must have the same set of legal moves each time, including the possible rights to castle and capture en passant. Positions are considered the same if the same type of piece is on a given square. So, for instance, if a player has two knights and the knights are on the same squares, it does not matter if the positions of the two knights have been exchanged. The game is not automatically drawn if a position occurs for the third time – one of the players, on their turn to move, must claim the draw with the arbiter.

Source wikipedia. To best explain when this rule is used just imagine that losing side has opportunity to create perpetual check. Not to check his opponent for eternity, one side can claim draw.

Aghh, I have had a player claim a DRAW even though MY PIECES had changed positions. I think this is where the moving player can claim a DRAW even when the opponent has not repeated the same moves..?

Correct?

If all it took for a draw was to shuffle one of your pieces a few times chess would be a joke.

Draws

Occasionally chess games do not end with a winner, but with a draw. There are 5 reasons why a chess game may end in a draw:

1. The position reaches a stalemate where it is one player’s turn to move, but his king is NOT in check and yet he does not have another legal move
2. The players may simply agree to a draw and stop playing
3. There are not enough pieces on the board to force a checkmate (example: a king and a bishop vs. a king)
4. A player declares a draw if the same exact position is repeated three times (though not necessarily three times in a row)
5. Fifty consecutive moves have been played where neither player has moved a pawn or captured a piece.

posted without permission from chess.com

"3-fold repetition is a helluva rule"  - Rick James

I've often wondered why 3 times repetition? Why not the second time?

There is a game like that -- I think Chinese chess is like that, the 2nd repetition is a draw.

But -c'mon guys.."NOT EVEN THREE CONSECUTIVE MOVES"? what is with that?

Because if you can't make any progress in a position, then a draw is a logical outcome.  If you have a better move that doesn't lead to previous positions, then you have 2 chances to play it.  If you fail to find such a move twice, then it's either not there, or arguably, you're not good enough to find it and so a draw is again a logical outcome.

Like Rick James said... "3-fold repetition is a helluva rule!"

What difference does it make if the positions occur consecutively? Other people have presented logical arguments as to why the game should end and be a draw after a position is repeated 3 times. You should present a logical argument explaining why they should be consecutive.

Note: putting the word consecutive in bold is not a logical argument, even if it's also typed in all caps and italicized.

The situation is slightly more complicated than that.

1 (stalemate) and 2 (mutual accord) are pretty straightforward, but 3 (insufficient material) is not. For example, some tournaments would declare the following position a draw but probably should not since a checkmate is technically possible for either side:

4 (threefold repetition) is relatively straightforward, but as was pointed out before, a "position" is defined as a set of legal moves for both sides, so swapping identical pieces is irrelevant, but the option to castle and capture en passant are not.

5 (fifty-move rule) is the same as 4 here with respect to castling and en passant rights, although this is very rarely relevant. Interestingly, FIDE changed the fifty-move rule several times when it was discovered that many endgames required more than fifty moves to win with perfect play, but they eventually changed it back when they realized no humans had perfect play anyway.

A sixth way to draw is when the stronger player's time expires. If the weaker side has insufficient material for checkmate or in some cases if the arbiter deems the position impossible for the weaker side to win, the game is drawn.

A related seventh way to draw is by calling the arbiter during time trouble and pointing out that your opponent has no winning chances and is merely making random moves to waste your time. If the arbiter agrees, the game is drawn.

Perpetual check used to be an additional way to draw, but it is no longer a separate rule since all perpetual checks will eventually lead to a draw by threefold repetition or the fifty-move rule.

There might be others I am missing, but those are all I can think of.

Thanks I'm in a bit of fix in my game. I think a draw will go well, as my opponent has my rook, and needs some bit of manoevres to get into a check position.

To give an player whose first attempt to win failed a second chance to try again from the same original position.

Not XiangQi (Chinese Chess). Draws are MUCH less common there, for a couple of reasons. First of all, stalemate is a win, as being able to restrict the opponent that much is considered victory. Second, it's actually against the rules to repeat the position 3 times. If you reach that situation, you're required to find a different move on the third repetition, even if that means losing.

The occurrence of non-consecutive repeats of a position leading to a draw => or the "draw from out of nowhere" is rather rare, isn't it?

As the previous posts suggest,  the fact is that it takes two to make the draw happen. Push a pawn and you've nulled out a repeat of positions.

If the two of you are just dancing around with pieces back and forth,  sans capture, sans pawn moves and this happened enough to repeat a position 3 times in the entire game, I see zero justification that either side had a compelling reason to play for a win.

I'd say the frustration with what happened to you should be no different then walking into a stalemate.

If I was losing and I saw an opportunity to draw this way, I'd take it in a heartbeat. 

Can someone tell me what is mean 3 times some posision? means exacly the some posible move 3 times and with the some player to play? if both blayer bo cycle the rocks or the knight is still cound some possision? tnx from the info.