South Hams Chess Club Database of Games

I agree the result is not in doubt - we are just debating a pretty arcane law of chess.

In the exalted world of arbiting, does FIDE or the ECF offer a service to answer questions about the laws - a bit like "Ask the Umpire" on Test Match Special?

We agree to differ on this one. I've always understood the 'same player' to mean the player who has the move and is claiming the draw. In otherwords you can't claim a draw when its not your move. My opponent had never heard of the 'same position occurring three times and was getting confused with repetition of moves. Before we went out in the kitchen I did ask him, 'do you want to continue with the game' and he declined. 'A claim of a draw under Article 9.2 or 9.3 shall be considered to be an offer of a draw.' We shook hands several times so the result of the game is not in doubt. However, the way the rule is worded does seem a bit ambiguous and I will seek clarification on this.  

To confirm this, I aded some artificial moves whiich created the same configuration of pieces as after 21. Rfc1 and 23. Qg3 but with black to move.  As soon as I do this, the three circular arrows appear - see screenshot attached.  The circular arrows do not appear after 26. ... Be8.

Under the laws of chess, a configuration of pieces with white to move is not considered "the same position" as an identical configuration of pieces with black to move.  So, unless I am misunderstanding something, we do not have a draw because of the same position recurring three times.  

To check this, I just pasted the game into the chess.com computer.  When a position is reached for the third time, it places a circular arrow against each of the three moves that entered the repeated position.  For this game, we don't get any circular arrows.

Because of whites rook move?? i'm still confused.. although both white and black had their pieces on the same sqs 3 times .. but not at the same time..white had moved 3 time and black twice..

i'm confused  .. to me it looks like white had the same position 3 times and black 2 times..does that count or am i wrong?

OK, so you claimed the draw declaring that the same position is about to occur.  But surely the same position was NOT about to occur, because "Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move".  My interpretation seems to be backed up by https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/39058/meaning-of-the-phrase-the-same-player-has-the-move

The 'same player' means the player who has the move and is claiming the draw, not as you describe. In the game I have the move and I claim the draw before I make the move declaring that the same position is about to occur.  The important thing here is that the same position is repeated three times and all the pieces on the board occupy the same squares on each occasion.

I agree it is not easy to spot if it's not a repetition of moves but I was deliberately looking for a way to draw the game which is why I moved the Bishop from e8 to d7 as a waiting move praying that he would move his Queen back to g3 which he did.

Very alert, Tony - it isn't easy to spot a position recurring three times when it isn't by an uninterrupted repetition of moves.

However - with great temerity - may I question whether you were entitled to claim the draw?  The position in question arose first after WHITE played 21. Rfc1, second after WHITE played 23. Qg3, and third after BLACK played 26. ... Bf8.  According to the FIDE rules of chess (see https://rcc.fide.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/20230101Laws-of-Chess.pdf), Rule 9.2.3, "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."  It the first two occurrences, it was Black who had the move, while in the third occurrence it was White who had the move.  Correct me if I am worng (and I probably am), but I would have thought this means that the third position is not considered the same as the first two positions.

That is quite a story Tony! It must have been a real shock for your opponent. Being an arbiter certainly helped in this game. Playing for his county I assume he must be a very strong player so obviously a great scalp.

I must admit that, even though I'd heard of the rule myself, I doubt I would have had the prescence of mind to realise the final position had occurred twice before, and claim the draw. I didn't know it was quite such a rare occurrence.