It looks like a three fold rep.

click for larger view

The above position arose with....

White to play their 26th move.

White to play their 28th move.

White to play their 30th move.

and here:

click for larger view

Black played 25...Bb6.

Black Played 27...Bb6

There is indeed a threefold rep of the <position>. But the <sequence of moves> was:

(1) 25...Bb6 26. Bh4 Bd8 27. Bf2
(2) 27...Bb6 28. Bh4 Bd8 29. Bf2
(3) 29...Bb6 and now White varied with <30. Bg3>

so under the old <sequence of moves> criterion, the third repetition was not complete.

So you are saying today this would have been a draw

click for larger view

White has just played 29.Bf2 before playing 29...Bb6.Today Black could have stopped the clocks and called over an arbiter to tell him he was going to play 29....Bb6 thus creating the same position with White to move to for the 3rd time. (having created the same position twice already with moves 25...Bb6 and move 27...Bb6.)

But back then they could not claim a draw because since that game the rules have been changed ( though you cannot remember when.)

However, The rule making this a clear draw by three fold repetition were in place at Hastings in 1895.

Using google scholar, I found the citation for Euwe's monograph:

Euwe, Max. <Mengentheoretische Betrachtungen über das Schachspiel.> 1929.

Edward Winter.

"(‘If the same position occurs thrice during a game, it being on each occasion the turn for the same player to move, the game is drawn’) also appeared as Rule VII in the ‘Revised International Code’ on page 9 of the English-language Hastings, 1895 tournament book. "

This was tidied up: 1899 and 1903.

‘A game is treated as drawn if, before touching a man, the player whose turn it is to play claims that the game be treated as drawn, and proves that the existing position existed, in the game and at the commencement of his turn to play, <twice> at least before the present turn.’

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

I looked at the Euwe paper, I've seen it before, think it was on RHP where someone was asking about the maximum number of legal moves there was in a game.

I've been looking for the time control to see if White stole some time to help him reach move 30 (if indeed move 30 was the first time control.) when he played 30.Bg3.

There does not appear to be any restriction of when you could draw, there are a few under 30 moves draws in this tournament.

I'm still thinking Black missed his chance, or maybe even saw it but thought he was still OK.

This Blog by Spektrowski is a wee goldmine of all kinds of Russian info.

Here he gives Moscow 1925 excerpts from the diary of Alexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky - annoyingly he stops just before this game.

https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrow...

There was definitely something strange going regarding Moscow 1925 and the three fold repetition rules.

Gruenfeld vs S B Gotthilf, 1925

A seven fold repetition!

---

The three fold repetition as we know it today was in place for New York 1924 as this Alekhine note suggests.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...

Seven of the 11 New York 1924 players went to Moscow in 1925. Five of them filled the top the five places. (Tartakower 5th = with Torre).

Yates vs Marshall, 1925 (two players from New York) had a three fold - (Tartakower vs Marshall, 1925 was another between to Ex New Yorkers.). These cases had perpetual check but today there is no such rule in FIDE Rules as the laws for Three Fold Rep cover it.

I doubt if there was a three fold rep rule for some players and a different set of rules for other players (in particularly Marshall) then it does look like Moscow 1925 may have had it own set of rules regarding 3 fold rep.

But unless I (or we) can get see the 1925 rules it as you say 'not proven ' that I'm am mistaken in my very first post, so therefore I am correct. :)

In Scotland were are unique is having 3 outcomes of a jury trial.

Guilty, Not Guilty and 'Not Proven'.

Basically 'Not Proven' means we think you did it (here I accuse a player of missing a three fold rep) but there is not enough evidence to prove this.

Myself and Beatgiant are aware that one of players must make a claim.

The debate is whether Ilyin-Zhenevsky could have made the claim. Would the rules they were playing under allow it?

The G Neumann - Steinitz game. There was no three fold rep rules in place at the time. That game made the rule a necessity.

Staunton in 1847 mentions perpetual check as a draw and then adds it is also a draw if both sides keep repeating moves 'for fear of each other'.

He does not give a number of how many times the position is allowed to be repeated before one side can claim a draw.

In 1899 'The Modern Chess Primer' by the jolly Reverent E. E. Cinnington says the game is drawn:

"If the same moves are repeated several times over." Again no mention of a number.

This is 29 years after the Steintz game so even then it does appear there was some ambiguity regarding this law.

Three fold rules as we know them today were in place by 1937. You yourself mentioned the 1929 rules.

The game you linked too was a case of neither playing claiming a draw. This position....

click for larger view

.....arose about 8 times. That does mean the rule was not in place.

The same player, Bodo, same tournamaent.A Budo vs Levenfish, 1937 you see Levenfish (the tournament winner) avoiding a three fold rep. only to draw a move or two later.

Levenfish knew the rules. A year before in Moscow in 1936 Botvinnik vs Levenfish, 1936

For every game you can post where three fold rep. was not claimed as an argument the law was not in place I can show you games from the same period where the draw was taken, or avoided, to show it was.

I'm still of the opinion that Ilyin-Zhenevsky had a chance to claim a draw but either chose not too, or missed it.

Alekhine writes about a three fold rep in his book on the 1924 tournament so it was an accepted rule back then. The one area of doubt is there was this rule about repeating a position 6 times to claim the draw.

Euwe's article does bear witness that the <sequence-based> rule was still at least under discussion as of 1929. Your examples show that the <position-based> rule was in place in Britain as of 1895 and the US as of 1924, but doesn't speak to Germany (was <sequence-based> as of 1906) or Russia (neither of us has shown any hard evidence either way).

With other types of draw, like stalemate, lack of mating material and perpetual check, or the 50-move rule, there is really no argument.

The threefold rep rule is like the LBW law in cricket: it just goes on and on and on.

The positions can be as far apart as all get-out, but the positions must be exactly identical (unless two knights or rooks have swapped places); you write the move down but you must not play it; your clock is ticking while the arbiter goes through the whole game... that is f you can find an arbiter. If your event has an arbiter he or she might be busy. If there is an arbiter and you are wrong, then you lose three minutes.

Is all that necessary? In top class chess what I'd love to see is a board that signals when there has been a threefold repetition, and if the game continues then the signal disappears. Like a less naggy Olga.

We are narrowing down the date the Soviets came under the FIDE three fold rep rule and it would appear that I am probably wrong that Ilyin-Zhenevsky could have claimed a draw. (sorry Alexander ).

This game: Botvinnik vs N Sorokin, 1931 has an unclaimed three fold rep and Botvinnik writes after move 44...Rb6.

"Of course, White's repetition was in order to gain time for consideration."

There was a three fold rep and Botvinnik seemed to be aware of it but it was not in line with the FIDE rules.

See this marvellous post: Botvinnik vs N Sorokin, 1931 (kibitz #14) by senojes for more details.

Next quest is to find out exactly when the USSR adopted the FIDE rules and it was possibly as you mentioned from 1947 onwards.

It is possible that this famous example of a claimed 3-fold rep Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 was the result of Petrosian being brought up on the old rules. He seemed unaware of what was happening.

So hands up. I was wrong.

P F Johner vs Nimzowitsch, 1928

Portisch vs Sosonko, 1983

Beliavsky vs Shirov, 1995

Flear vs Adams, 1996

Germany took part in the first 'Official Olympiad' organised by FIDE in 1928 so if FIDE had drawn up a set of repetition rules by then we have a possible timeline when it became official.

Next time I'm at the Edinburgh club I'll go though all the old BCM's and see if they mention anything about the three fold rules. 1925-1930 will be a good start. Also when going over these old magazines I usually (it never fails) unearth dozens of other wee gems of trivia.

In that game, Spassky definitely had an endgame advantage at adjournment, and the next day everyone was looking forward to seeing if he could convert it. But, much to everyone's surprise Spassky fell into a three-fold within just 5-6 moves upon the game being resumed.

but see the Apr-24-06 kibitz on that game by <YouRang> <the claim was invalid> because the turn to move was different in one of the repetitions.