My first thought is that the words “… for at least …” might be confusing to some, implying that one could claim at anytime after the third occurrence.
The wording “for at least” allows one to claim a draw if there have been more than three occurrences of a position meeting the requirements of rule 14C. Otherwise, a “rules lawyer” might claim that since “four is not three,” if one missed the opportunity to claim a draw after exactly three occurrences, it would not be possible to claim a draw later if the same position occurs again.
I can not see any reading of that language that would allow an interpretation of the player being entitled to make a claim any time after the third occurrence of a position. The reader is advised to pay close heed to the words “is about to appear” and “has just appeared.”
The references to(8A3 and 8A4) would lead me to interpret the rule as only after castling is permanently forbidden should the position be considered the same (is that clear?? - maybe not enough coffee yet)
IOW, one of the players would have to have castling permanently removed from the equation.
I agree, Ken, I was just trying to figure out why someone would think they could make the claim much later. I believe it’s clear, under 14c2 when the claim is to be made.
I just tried the moves on Fritz, and the program declares the draw after the castling move is permanently removed from the possibilities.
I’m going to temporarily hijack the thread to note that the 50-move rule is different from the 3-fold rule in that the 50-move rule doesn’t care about whether or not eligibility was lost for castling or an en passant move. So 20 moves followed by a move with castling folllowed by 29 more moves would still add up to 50 moves and be eligible for a claim.
Must take issue here: an en passant move is a pawn move, and the count would have to start over.
Not only is en passant a pawn move but it is a capture too!
Unless I misunderstand Mr. Wiewel’s post, I think he meant that an en passant capture was possible in the position but not actually played. On the other hand, by definition, an en passant capture would only be possible as the very first move following a pawn move, so it would of necessity have to be the first move of the fifty.
I agree. I’d prefer not to have to explain to a player why his draw claim is being rejected using the rule as it is currently worded.
Bob
You are, of course, correct. I will grant that I have come accross players that were unclear about the rules. Some years back a player opted to accept a draw the opponent had offered. Both players agreed that the offer was made and accepted. Further investigation found that the only offer had been made about 20 moves earlier and that both players were confused over how long it would remain open.
Players unclear about the rules? Surely you jest! 
For scholastic tournament announcements I’ve found that asking players to raise hands for TDs to clarify the rules and resolve confusion helps avoid players having rulings go their way (because their opponent was wrong about the rules) and then getting so upset (thinking their opponents were trying to cheat) that they tank the rest of the game. Having them think the opponents were confused/mis-informed rather than cheaters (which is almost always what happened anyway) helps keep both players calm.
P.S. My name is not Shirley.
I thought the new rule was to move first, then record. If a player records first as in this example isn’t he breaking a rule?
The proper procedure for claiming threefold repetition has not changed. The claimant should still write the move without playing it.
Your observation is well made. However, in the USCF Official Rules of Chess, there is one mandatory instance of recording the move first and not executing it on the board, contrary to rule 15A. That is the correct procedure to claim a draw by threefold occurrence of position under rule 14C if the player’s move would cause the third occurrence. Note that if the claim is denied, the player must play the recorded move on the board. The player is absolutely not allowed to make a different move (provided, of course, the move recorded on the scoresheet is legal), so in this case it can not be argued that the player is using the scoresheet for notes.
The FIDE Laws of Chess are even stricter. To claim a draw either by threefold occurrence of position or by fifty moves without a capture or a pawn move, the player must record the move on the scoresheet and not make the move on the board. Under FIDE rules, if the player touches a piece, the player loses the right to claim a draw. (USCF rules still allow the player to make the claim if the player has made a move but not yet pressed the clock. Sometimes one wonders what the point of rules are if there is no consequence to not following the rule …)
So what happens if a player has an electronic device? To be perfectly honest, I’ve never really understood the logic behind writing but not making given that you have to make the move anyway if the claim is wrong (assuming you need the move to make the third occurrence).
The player must record the move even if using an electronic scoresheet. As there is no possibility to change a legal move so recorded, it doesn’t matter that the player will see the position on the device before it exists on the board. (Well, I suppose there’s an argument that if the player sees the position on the device, he may realize the claim would be incorrect and avoid the subsequent two minute penalty for a wrong claim.)
I can’t say I understand the logic under USCF rules, either. It’s clearer under FIDE rules, as the Laws of Chess do not distinguish between determination and completion of a move (so there is no concept of a player who has made a move on the board still being on the move for the purpose of making claims). Incidentally, as I have said before, I think this is a case where the USCF rules are superior. However, it comes at the cost of making the clock an inseparable part of the rules – no free lunch!
And then there is the case of dealing with 2 young scholastic players, neither of whom understand the rule, who keep moving the same two pieces back and forth, at which point the TD bends the rules a bit and intervenes in the game pointing out the repetition while explaining the rule and declares the game a draw so that we don’t have to wait until the clock runs out to start the next round!
And the good news is that, as of January 1, 2015, there won’t be any need to bend the rules!
The Delegates approved adding rules to allow the director to declare a game drawn without a player making a claim if there have been at least 75 moves without a capture or a pawn push, or if there have been at least five consecutive occurrences of the same position (like the threefold occurrence rule, except the five repetitions must be consecutive – example: 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Ng8 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Ng1 Ng8 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Ng1 Ng8 7. Nf3 Nf6 8. Ng1 Ng8 9. Nf3 and the game is drawn. If the game had instead gone 9. Nd4 Nd5 10. Nf3 Nf6, the game would not have been drawn under this rule even though the same position has occurred after Black’s 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 10th moves because the repetitions were not consecutive.)
This change mirrors the recent addition to the FIDE Laws of Chess. (Sigh, I suppose that means we now wait for the FIDE bashers to come out and complain 
)
Doesn’t Bill Smythe have a “thousand move rule” that he invokes in such cases? 
Didn’t there use to be (3rd edition??) a “no progress” rule where the TD could intervene without waiting for 50, or 75 moves in situations like above?
I know that I have personally stopped games of this type and declared the draw, even if one or both sides had mating material but clearly didn’t know how to end the game.
The no-progress rule, as I recall, didn’t depend on triple repetition, or 50-move draw. All that was required was for the director, and possibly a witness, to verify that the players clearly without a doubt didn’t know how to win the game.