Three-fold repetition of position

It's hard work being an arbiter. You never know when the players - or worse still, someone from the organising committee - will throw you a curve ball. Take for example, the dispute over the three-fold repetition of position in the seventh round of the recent Penang heritage city international open chess championship.

In this crucial game, after about three hours of play, Emmanuel Senador, the international master from the Philippines called for an arbiter and informed him of his intended move which would repeat the position on the chess board for the third time, thus allowing him to claim for a draw through repetition of position.

Photo by Andrew Ooi

Two arbiters went on stage, Michael Yeap and Jonathan Chuah. After playing through the game, Jonathan said no, there had not been any three-fold repetition of position by the same player. The game continued but Senador was upset and he soon lost the game to his opponent.

The argument continued after the game was over. According to Jonathan, Senador said he was embarrassed by the decision not to give him the draw. He was an international master, he said, and he knew all the chess rules. And he was very certain that the position had been repeated three times.

Anyhow, he complained to the secretary of the Penang Chess Association who decided to side with the Filipino player. She insisted that there was a three-fold repetition of position and she even sent Jonathan a highlighted excerpt of the Fide rules of chess (Article 9.2.1) which read:

9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1 is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

But what exactly was meant by "same position"? She took it to mean the same position appearing on the chess board three times. Jonathan said that was not sufficient. That Article 9.2.1 must be read together with the next Article 9.2.2 which defined the term "same position". Let me repeat that: Article 9.2.1 must be read together with Article 9.2.2:

9.2.2 Positions are considered the same if and only 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. Thus positions are not the same if:
9.2.2.1 at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant
9.2.2.2 a king had castling rights with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

Jonathan asked for my opinion and I told him that he was correct. "Same position" would mean the same player having the move each time the position was repeated, and all the other conditions having been met. If Senador's opponent had the move when the position came up the first time, he must also have the move when the position appeared the second time and the third time. But it was not. When the score sheet was checked, it was Senador who had the move when the position appeared the second time, not his opponent. And it was Senador who was going to have the move again going into the third time.

Refer this to your Chief Arbiter, I suggested to Jonathan. And he did. And Hamid Majid went through the game, very meticulously, and arrived at the same conclusion as us. No three-fold repetition of the position. Period. Here is the game in question:

[Event "10th Penang Heritage City International "]
[Site "Red Rock Hotel, Penang, Malays"]
[Date "2018.12.07"]
[Round "7.2"]
[White "Senador, Emmanuel"]
[Black "Kurniawan, Muhamad Agus"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A00"]
[WhiteElo "2322"]
[BlackElo "2258"]
[PlyCount "146"]
[EventDate "2018.12.03"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "MAS"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Qe2 Qe7 6. d3 Nf6 7. Bg5 Qxe2+ 8. Bxe2 Be7 9. Nc3 c6 10. O-O-O h6 11. Bf4 d5 12. Rhe1 O-O 13. h3 Bc5 14. d4 Bb4 15. Bd3 Be6 16. Re3 Bxc3 17. bxc3 Nbd7 18. Be5 Ne4 19. Bxe4 dxe4 20. Rxe4 Bxa2 21. Bd6 Rfe8 22. Rde1 Rxe4 23. Rxe4 Be6 24. Nd2 b5 25. g4 a5 26. f4 a4 27. f5 Bd5 28. Re7 Nf6 29. Ba3 Re8 30. Rxe8+ Nxe8 31. h4 Nf6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5 Nh7 34. Be7 g6 35. Nf1 gxf5 36. Ng3 Kg7 37. Nh5+ Kg8 38. Kd2 Bf3 39. Nf4 Nf8 40. c4 bxc4 41. Ke3 Be4 42. c3 Nd7 43. Kd2 Kh7 44. Ke3 Kh8 45. Kd2 Kg8 46. Ke3 Kh7 47. Kd2 Nb8 48. Bd6 Nd7 49. Be7 Bh1 50. Ke3 Nb6 51. Kd2 Be4 52. Bc5 Na8 53. Bd6 Bh1 54. Kc1 Bd5 55. Kd2 Be4 56. Kc1 Kg8 57. Kd2 f6 58. g6 Kg7 59. Kc1 Nb6 60. Kd2 Nd5 61. Nxd5 cxd5 62. Ke3 Kxg6 63. Kf4 Kh6 64. Kg3 Kh5 65. Ba3 f4+ 66. Kxf4 Kh4 67. Bd6 Kh3 68. Ke3 Kg2 69. Ba3 Kf1 70. Kd2 f5 71. Bd6 Kf2 72. Ba3 f4 73. Bd6 f3 0-1

This was the position after Black had moved 43...Kh7. The first time that the position had turned up on the chess board. White to move next.

This was the position after White had played 47. Kd2. The second time that the position occurred on the chess board. But now, it was Black to move next.

And this was the position after 49. Be7. (White was obliged to make this move after he had announced to the arbiter his intention to do so.) This was the third time we saw the same position on the chess board. Like the second time, White had made a move to reach this position and it was Black to move next.

So if in the first case it was White's turn to move and in the second and third cases it would be Black's time to move, clearly there had not been any three-fold repetition of position. Senador was given a set of the Chief Arbiter's final decision. He could have lodged an appeal against this decision but I was told that none was forthcoming.

As a postscript, I was told that the dissatisfaction festered on. The next morning, the association's secretary made more representations to other chess players in the tournament hall, including a lawyer friend who was also playing in the event and himself a highly regarded player. And yet, despite his experience, he took the secretary's side and claimed that the arbiter was wrong. How absurd could that be. And I'm sure this will still not be the end of the matter; I'm sure that it will be raised again in the next committee meeting of the Penang Chess Association.

Finally as an end note, in case there are people questioning whether I have the locus standi to comment on this incident, I can give the assurance that yes, I do have the right. I may not be a high-flying or prominent International Arbiter but the last time I checked, I am still one. One with my ears to the ground, if I may add. 😜