Repetition of Position Rule


[Event "XXXXX"]
[Site "IECC"]
[Date "XXXX.XX.XX"]
[White "XXXXX"]
[Black "XXXXX"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Qe7 5.d3 Bg7 6.0-0 Nc6 7.c3
Nf6 8.b4 h6 9.e5 Ng4 10.d4 0-0 11.Re1 a6 12.h3 Ne3 13.Bxe3
fxe3 14.Rxe3 d6 15.Bd5 g4 16.hxg4 Bxg4 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Qd3
Rfe8 19.Nbd2 a5 20.a3 Qd7 21.Nc4 Bf5 22.Qe2 axb4 23.cxb4 c5
24.dxc5 dxc5 25.bxc5 Qd5 26.Rc3 Qxc5+ 27.Qe3 Qxe3+ 28.Nxe3
Rxe5 29.Nxe5 Bxe5 30.Rac1 Bxc3 31.Rxc3 Be6 32.Nc2 Kg7 33.Kf2
Ra4 34.Ke2 Bd5 35.Ne3 Be6 36.Nc2 Bd5 37.Ne3 Be6 38.Nc2 1/2-1/2

A draw claimed by Repetition of Position is defined as follows:

By recurrence of position when the same position occurs three times in the game, and it is the same person's turn to move on each occasion, and if such player claim the draw before the position is altered by further play, otherwise no claim can be sustained.

The correct procedure in claiming a draw by Repetition of Position is to disclose the intended move which will repeat the position for the third time. In this case, if Black states his intended move 38...Bd5 will repeat a position for the third time, but doesn't make the move, then the game is drawn. But if Black makes the move, then he cannot claim the draw since it is no longer his move.

The repetitive positions occur after move 34:

Black Bishop on d5, White Knight on e3, Black Bishop on e6 and White Knight on c2.

In declaring a draw Black would state something like the following in his email message when it is his turn to move:

I intend for my next move to be 38...Bd5, therefore I claim a draw by the Rule of Repetition of Position.

This now makes the game a legal draw. It is not a legal draw unless the above procedure is followed.

But if Black did play 38...Bd5 but did not claim a draw, White would then be entitled to claim a draw before and in place of playing his 39th move.

Any position can occur twice for the rule to be invoked provided that it has a potential of occurring for the third time.