Talk:Fivefold repetition

Reviewer Note

See statement in AFC comments about the difference between threefold and fivefold. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

FIDE worship

What bothers me about these articles is that they appear to assume that FIDE rules are the only rules, and that FIDE is the ultimate and final authority on all things chess. This is not the case. Chess has been around over 500 years, FIDE less than 100. The threefold repetition rule existed long before FIDE did, and fivefold repetition did not suddenly become one of the immutable laws of chess in 2014 just because the FIDE Rules Committee passed a resolution.

USCF even runs the majority of its tournaments to a different set of rules, and the majority of USCF events are not FIDE rated as a result. USCF introduced its weaker version of the fivefold rule in 2019 (7th edition), it was not "the same always" as claimed in an edit summary. (I actually prefer the USCF rule, it adheres to the intention - to stop kids repeating positions forever without the TD being allowed to intervene. And yes, I've seen it happen in kids' tournaments).

ICCF has never felt compelled to implement all FIDE rules, for example it allows win claims based on tablebases even when the conversion requires more than 50 moves. There is no "fivefold repetition" or "seventy five move rule" in ICCF.

FIDE also does not regulate how problemists set their problems or how software developers write their programs. Hence the pushback on the FEN article. Game theory discussions of how the new FIDE rules turn chess from a potentially infinite game (if the players elect not to claim a draw when available) to a finite one are of interest only to mathematicians. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what is meant with "FIDE worship". This rule was newly introduced to the FIDE rules and the article documents this FIDE rule. The article went through the normal article creation process and was accepted. This process is finished and there is no reason to rejustify. Taking the angle of historical perspective, one of many possible angles and as such not ultimative, has his right in the right place, but the article as such does not need a resolution of this. I have a remark regarding FIDE rules versus "common rules" but I will put this on the talk page of the rules of chess article. This does not belong here. Dlbbld (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "Game theory discussions". Once sentence mentioning "finite" is not game theory discussion. Most chess players are interested if White has an advantage. Next computer is asked, answer in theory can be found (for game is finite, so brute-force possible). Game being "finite" is of no interest to mathematics, this is a chess question only. Dlbbld (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "to stop kids repeating positions forever". This was claimed repeatedly, no source provided that this is the motivation for FIDE rules. By the side, FIDE rules are only necessary for rated games. Otherwise, FIDE rules can be adapted as needed. FIDE rules are in many points not suited for inexperienced players, so the statement is highest unlikely and IA source says otherwise. Dlbbld (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I doubt kids repeating indefinitely was part of the FIDE justification for the rule, but I used to direct scholastic USCF tournaments, with kids as young as 5 years old. Many of them would just keep moving and moving, not knowing that they can claim a draw. And the director couldn't step in to declare a draw. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation. This turns to the question of how much sense it makes that "beginners" play tournament games according to USCF or FIDE rules. My opinion is, that this barely makes sense. Game loss in standard chess for two illegal moves happens more for "beginners" and can be frustrating. The touch-move rule is another problem. This is neither a USCF or FIDE rules problem. It is mainly the responsibility of the tournament organizer to amend the rules according to the player level. Dlbbld (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

These were USCF-rated tournaments for years before I became involved, so we tried to follow USCF rules. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have seen it happen and I don't need to cite things I write on a talk page, for goodness sake. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not about observation in kid's tournament, it's about your claim in edit comment "That rule really only exists so that the arbiter can intervene in kid's tournaments" which I adressed and you did not explain on what basis you make this claim. Dlbbld (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

How about you stop harping on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about a throwaway editsum? And no, I don't have to cite that either. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a simple question about a claim you used in a revert. Dlbbld (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

About that diagram....

Without the context of the moves played, it's just a diagram. It does not aid understanding of the text. I haven't gone over the threefold repetition article in detail but it seems to me those diagrams are all provided in the context of chess moves. In the current context, literally any diagram could be used and the reader would be none the wiser. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with this very strict interpretation. Very very strictly this is no additional information, the reader can look up the game himself and check and walk out on Wikipedia. The diagram shows the final position and the user gets an idea bout the game played, with is additional information. Also, I find it reasonable to relate this to the threefold article. In the threefold article, there are more than ten examples. Even not all examples being necessary per my opinion, it shows that examples make sense. With the same rationale, an example makes sense here, the wheel must not be reinvented all the time. Also using diagrams is common in chess articles. If you think this approach is wrong, this should be argued on the existing articles first before a new article is used for a discussion of this. Dlbbld (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many examples on the threefold repetition article, but at least the diagrams there are all given in the context of chess moves... however I don't really want to play whatabout regarding the "other stuff" that "exists". A diagram with no chess context is useless to the reader. The point of the example is not the position itself, but the interpretation of the rules. There is no intention to provide any chess instruction or knowledge. I therefore see no need for a diagram. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't understand. Threefold repetition diagrams show relevant positions for selected games, what is wrong with showing relevant position here? Dlbbld (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Do we have an example where the five-fold repetition rule was used? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Besides the example in the article Sethuraman vs Guseinov, World Rapid Championship 2017; Potapov vs Adly, World Rapid Championship 2018; Robson vs Moranda, Professional Rapid Online Chess League 2019 (by chess.com); all GM's. chess.com used to have claim on threefold and fivefold autodraw, now threefold autodraw. Dlbbld (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

All examples end precisely after the first fivefold repetition. Use as reference does not apply; draw reason not documented. PGN's usually don't report draw reason, also not mentioned in chess.com game (see "Chess software does not support the rule very well"). Dlbbld (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No you don't understand, no matter how clearly I explain it, and it's frustrating the hell out of me. A diagram without chess moves is just a diagram. It is meaningless. It is irrelevant. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding. It is a distraction. The author of the article in the FIDE Arbiter's manual knew all this, and omitted the actual moves. This is *not* how diagrams are used in the threefold repetition article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Moves would be nice, but it is the position that occurred five times, so I think it is worthwhile. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

To provided repeated position for me is first priority, didn't want to overload with moves. First diagram in Chess has no moves, Fischer vs Spassky diagram has no moves, whatever, don't mind adding moves for internal consistency. Dlbbld (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Section title rule quote

Title for rule citation on fifty-move rule is "Statement of rule", "Statement of the rule" on seventy-five-move rule and threefold repetition. Fivefold repetition belongs to the same category, to use the same title is to improve readability, not WP:OSE. Changing the title on all articles is fine, to have it all different not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlbbld (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That isn't how wikipedia works at all. Different articles on similar subjects may use different spellings, different date formats, different citation methods, different everything. And that's perfectly ok. There is no requirement at all for consistent wording across different articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:Some stuff exists for a reason, more precisely "As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred." per my point of view. Could be invalidated by "Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that the precedent should be followed elsewhere." but does not apply for threefold repetition is there longtime, so mentioned title can be assumed appropriate. Dlbbld (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)