Editing Threefold repetition (section)

==Incorrect claims==
Even top players have made incorrect claims of a draw under this rule.  The Karpov–Miles game is an example of the right to castle having to be the same in all positions.  The Fischer–Spassky game is an example that it must be the same player's move in all three positions.

===Karpov vs. Miles, 1986===
{{Chess diagram
|tright
|Karpov vs. Miles, 1986

|rd|  |  |  |kd|bd|  |rd
|  |  |  |  |  |pd|pd|pd
|  |  |  |  |pd|  |  |  
|  |nl|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |pl|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|pl|nd|  |bl|kl|  |pl|pl
|rl|  |  |  |  |  |  |rl
|Position after 22.Nb5
}}
The clause about the right to [[castling|castle]] is a subtle but important one. In a game<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068512 |title=Karpov vs. Miles, 1986 |publisher=Chessgames.com |access-date=2020-07-03}}</ref> between grandmasters [[Anatoly Karpov]] and [[Tony Miles]] in Tilburg 1986, Karpov had less than five minutes remaining on his [[game clock|clock]] in which to finish a specified number of moves or forfeit the game.  He claimed a draw by repetition after checking his scoresheet carefully, whereupon it was pointed out to him that in the first occurrence of position, Black's king had had the right to castle, whereas in the second and third it had not. Tournament rules stipulated that a player be penalized with three minutes of their time for incorrect claims, which left Karpov's flag on the verge of falling. By then, Miles had taken the draw.  (Miles should have readily accepted a draw in that position, but Karpov was close to losing the game because of [[time control]].) After 22.Nb5 ({{em|diagram}}), play continued:

: '''22... Ra4''' (Black loses queenside castling right)
: '''23. Nc3 Ra8'''
: '''24. Nb5''' (first time only, Black lost queenside castling right) '''Ra4'''
: '''25. Nc3 Ra8'''
: '''26. Nb5''' (second time only, Black lost queenside castling right) '''½-½'''

Black was able to [[castling|castle]] {{chessgloss|queenside}} the first time the arrangement of pieces in the diagram occurred, but not when the arrangement was repeated.
{{clear}}

===Fischer vs. Spassky, 1972===
{{Chess diagram
 |tright
 |Fischer vs. Spassky, 1972
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
 |  |  |  |kd|  |  |bd|  
 |  |pd|  |  |pd|  |  |pd
 |pd|  |  |nd|  |  |pd|  
 |pl|  |kl|  |nl|  |pl|  
 |  |pl|pl|  |  |  |  |pl
 |  |  |  |  |nl|  |  |  
 |Position after 48.Kc3, 50.Ne1 and 54...Nd4 (different turn)
}}
In the [[World Chess Championship 1972#Game 20|twentieth game]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044372 |title=Fischer vs. Spassky, 20th game, 1972 |publisher=Chessgames.com |access-date=2020-07-03}}</ref> of the [[World Chess Championship 1972|1972 World Chess Championship]] between [[Bobby Fischer]] and [[Boris Spassky]], Fischer called the {{chessgloss|arbiter}} [[Lothar Schmid]] to claim a draw because of threefold repetition.  Spassky did not dispute it and signed the scoresheets before the arbiter ruled.<ref>{{Harvcol|Gligorić|1972|p=119}}</ref> After the draw had been agreed, it was pointed out that the position had occurred after White's 48th ({{em|see diagram}}) and 50th moves, and again after Black's 54th move.  So the claim was actually invalid because it was not the same player's turn to move in all three instances, but the draw result stood.<ref>{{Harvcol|Alexander|1972|pp=137–38}}</ref><ref>Alexander says that it appears that the arbiter approved the draw but Gligorić says that Spassky signed the scoresheet before the arbiter could rule on the claim.</ref>
{{clear}}