Answers.Body: <p>No, it was not a draw. For a draw by three-fold repetition, the exact position, and all of the possible moves (castling and en passant, which since en passant can only happen on the move, in essence, it requires a fourth repetition of the position), have to be repeated three times.</p>
  
  <p>It was clearly a case of your opponent not really knowing the rules.</p>
  
  <p>It seems like he was somewhat confusing, and mixing, three-fold repetition with the 50-move rule, which requires 50 moves of just moving around without a pawn move or capture with repeating the position three times.</p>
  
  <p>P.S. The repetitions do not need to be consecutive. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-09T19:19:47.900Z
Answers.Text: Many players especially newer ones and those who do not play in tournaments do not know all the rules.  I played someone at the club we had at the uni who did not know en passant.
Answers.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-09T19:25:39.437Z
Answers.Text: Thanks Phish, I thought it was odd and I've never heard of a 6-move draw like that before. I don't play too often so I'm not too familiar with ruling like that. I just agreed for the game's sake but I know I was in a winning position to promote the pawn and pick off the rest.
Answers.UserDisplayName: tigerzblood
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-10T08:37:12.957Z
Answers.Text: Primarily YOUR figures didn't take part in the repetition - as your bishop moved with a clear goal and clearly changed and did not repeat its move
Answers.UserDisplayName: eagle275
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-10T11:38:46.073Z
Answers.Text: "P.S. The repetitions do not need to be consecutive." They don't? Must be hard to keep track then.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mast
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-10T11:50:57.837Z
Answers.Text: No, they do not. Considering the rule is really borne of tournaments, you keep score there, so there is proof. That said, it might be hard for a weaker player to realize they have had a three-fold repetition, but most experienced players have an idea they have repeated three times, and then they can just glance at their scoresheet to confirm. It might need to be a bit more obvious if you are playing blitz, and thus, in a row is easier to prove.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-10T17:19:49.697Z
Answers.Text: @Mast Yes. If someone claims a draw and the opponent doesn't agree that it's a draw, then in a tournament the arbiter needs to look at the scoresheets and replay the game to determine whether it actually is a draw. This can take a while.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JiK
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-10T17:31:18.153Z
Answers.Text: @JiK I think that this was much more informal (on off-hand game) than that, and hopefully, presented with the evidence that it is not a draw, he would just agree, and acquiesce.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-09T19:02:36.063Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-01-09T19:41:39.007Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-01-09T19:41:39.007Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Body: <p>I was playing this game in-person with someone and I was white. My opponent had a pawn on a7 and kept moving his king back and forth  between c6 and d6 at least 3-4 times while I maneuvered my bishop around the board to capture his pawn on a7 to make room for my past pawn. After I captured his pawn on a7 he moved his king back to d6 and claimed it was a draw because at that time he had moved his king back and forth on the same 2 squares 6 times. I understand the 3 fold repetition but his king had other squares to move and wasn't in a perpetual check. Was this a valid draw?<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/JQtqe.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/JQtqe.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
  
Tags: <rules><claim-draw>
Title: Was this a valid draw?
ThreadText: # Was this a valid draw?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-01-09)
  
  I was playing this game in-person with someone and I was white. My opponent had a pawn on a7 and kept moving his king back and forth between c6 and d6 at least 3-4 times while I maneuvered my bishop around the board to capture his pawn on a7 to make room for my past pawn. After I captured his pawn on a7 he moved his king back to d6 and claimed it was a draw because at that time he had moved his king back and forth on the same 2 squares 6 times. I understand the 3 fold repetition but his king had other squares to move and wasn't in a perpetual check. Was this a valid draw?[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/JQtqe.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/JQtqe.jpg)
  
  **Tags:** rules, claim-draw
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2020-01-09. Score: 13 | Accepted answer
  
  No, it was not a draw. For a draw by three-fold repetition, the exact position, and all of the possible moves (castling and en passant, which since en passant can only happen on the move, in essence, it requires a fourth repetition of the position), have to be repeated three times.
  
  It was clearly a case of your opponent not really knowing the rules.
  
  It seems like he was somewhat confusing, and mixing, three-fold repetition with the 50-move rule, which requires 50 moves of just moving around without a pawn move or capture with repeating the position three times.
  
  P.S. The repetitions do not need to be consecutive.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: Many players especially newer ones and those who do not play in tournaments do not know all the rules.  I played someone at the club we had at the uni who did not know en passant.  
  > **username_0**: Thanks Phish, I thought it was odd and I've never heard of a 6-move draw like that before. I don't play too often so I'm not too familiar with ruling like that. I just agreed for the game's sake but I know I was in a winning position to promote the pawn and pick off the rest.  
  > **username_3**: Primarily YOUR figures didn't take part in the repetition - as your bishop moved with a clear goal and clearly changed and did not repeat its move  
  > **username_4**: "P.S. The repetitions do not need to be consecutive." They don't? Must be hard to keep track then.  
  > **username_1**: No, they do not. Considering the rule is really borne of tournaments, you keep score there, so there is proof. That said, it might be hard for a weaker player to realize they have had a three-fold repetition, but most experienced players have an idea they have repeated three times, and then they can just glance at their scoresheet to confirm. It might need to be a bit more obvious if you are playing blitz, and thus, in a row is easier to prove.  
  > **username_5**: @username_4 Yes. If someone claims a draw and the opponent doesn't agree that it's a draw, then in a tournament the arbiter needs to look at the scoresheets and replay the game to determine whether it actually is a draw. This can take a while.  
  > **username_1**: @username_5 I think that this was much more informal (on off-hand game) than that, and hopefully, presented with the evidence that it is not a draw, he would just agree, and acquiesce.  
  
  ---
  
  