I was playing a game of bullet (and I was winning) and out of no where this game was called a draw by repetition. Can someone please explain how this is a draw, I dont see any moves that were repeated.
It is a draw by repetition of position, not move.
But what position was repeated, the rooks moved and the bishops were also moved
A common misconception about "draw by repetition" is that it means the same moves are being played over and over. It actually means that the position was exactly the same on three different occasions; furthermore, they need not occur consecutively.
For example: if moves 32 and 40 of a game resulted in identical positions, and that same position somehow occurred yet again on move 82, it would be a draw.
1)If viewing the game on a computer, look for that circular arrow icon to the right of the move to see where the position repeated itself.
2)If you were to look at the game, the last major change in the position was the move 26.Rfd1 where white doubled the rooks. That coincidentally is the starting moment of the 3-fold repetition. So if you start to look closely after that move, you will see where the position repeats itself 3 times.
After the bishop shuffle 26...Bc7 27.Bb4 Bd6 28.Bc3, the same position that was present after 26.Rfd1 occurs for the second time.
To finish things off for both sides there is that knight and queen shuffle with 28...Ne5 29.Qh4 Ng6 30.Qh5 to repeat the position after 26.Rfd1 a third time.
The 3 fold repetition might have been difficult to recognize because 2 different sets of pieces were shuffled back and forth to create the second and third repetition of the initial position.
I don't know why this should bother me but there is this pattern of an extreme laziness.
First, the user locked-in-rn was too lazy to check the rules by himself, preferring to post here instead. When the rules were explained to him he was still too lazy to look for threefold repetition of position in his own game, asking others to help. Some very detailed explanations were provided and locked-in-rn... he just disappears, vanishes. I guess he is just too lazy to thank people who tried to help.
I don't know why this should bother me but there is this pattern of an extreme laziness.
First, the user locked-in-rn was too lazy to check the rules by himself, preferring to post here instead. When the rules were explained to him he was still too lazy to look for threefold repetition of position in his own game, asking others to help. Some very detailed explanations were provided and locked-in-rn... he just disappears, vanishes. I guess he is just too lazy to thank people who tried to help.
I agree. The other thing that drives me crazy is when people need to have stalemate explained to them and then start arguing with the same people that helped them about whether or not the rule should exist. no good deed goes unpunished, I guess.
I don't know why this should bother me but there is this pattern of an extreme laziness.
First, the user locked-in-rn was too lazy to check the rules by himself, preferring to post here instead. When the rules were explained to him he was still too lazy to look for threefold repetition of position in his own game, asking others to help. Some very detailed explanations were provided and locked-in-rn... he just disappears, vanishes. I guess he is just too lazy to thank people who tried to help.
I try not to judge players on their ignorance of the rules because I don't know how they learned how to play chess and how serious of a player they are. If they purely play online and don't play rated tournaments via their national chess federation, it wouldn't surprise me if their knowledge of some rules is lacking.
As far as being too lazy to look for the repetition of position, the OP's post on #3 did indicate some confusion between a repetition of position and a repetition of moves. They might have tried to look for it but still didn't understand what happened.
I'll still go through the time to explain things on posts like this because the OP might take the time to see the responses and other users might look at the topic and learn something new.
But when it comes to people arguing about if certain rules like Stalemate or draw by 3-fold repetition should exist, I just walk away. Those people have no interest in being helped and there is no sense in wasting time on them.
I don't know why this should bother me but there is this pattern of an extreme laziness.
First, the user locked-in-rn was too lazy to check the rules by himself, preferring to post here instead. When the rules were explained to him he was still too lazy to look for threefold repetition of position in his own game, asking others to help. Some very detailed explanations were provided and locked-in-rn... he just disappears, vanishes. I guess he is just too lazy to thank people who tried to help.
I agree. The other thing that drives me crazy is when people need to have stalemate explained to them and then start arguing with the same people that helped them about whether or not the rule should exist. no good deed goes unpunished, I guess.
Yes, stalemates are another recurrent silly topic. Stalemates, rematches, mouse slips - I just try to stay away from these discussions.
A common misconception about "draw by repetition" is that it means the same moves are being played over and over. It actually means that the position was exactly the same on three different occasions; furthermore, they need not occur consecutively.
For example: if moves 32 and 40 of a game resulted in identical positions, and that same position somehow occurred yet again on move 82, it would be a draw.
Thanks for the clarification, it makes a lot more sense now.
I don't know why this should bother me but there is this pattern of an extreme laziness.
First, the user locked-in-rn was too lazy to check the rules by himself, preferring to post here instead. When the rules were explained to him he was still too lazy to look for threefold repetition of position in his own game, asking others to help. Some very detailed explanations were provided and locked-in-rn... he just disappears, vanishes. I guess he is just too lazy to thank people who tried to help.
Bro why would you take time out of your day to tell me not to use the forums as a forum. You legitimately spent time that you could have been playing chess to tell me why my question was dumb. Its a genuine question and it isn't clear when playing on mobile. And just so you know, I haven't played on computer since my last post so don't expect me to respond to all messages within 1 business day, I have other things I have to do, apparently unlike you.
I was playing a game of bullet (and I was winning) and out of no where this game was called a draw by repetition. Can someone please explain how this is a draw, I dont see any moves that were repeated.
https://www.chess.com/game/live/131776759181