We've all been there.. the position is desperately loosing, only chance is to draw with three-fold repitition or perpetual check (or three-fold repitition through perpetual check). I've always found it a very distasteful way of playing, and for a long time I would avoid it altogether, even if it meant I would lose the game. The couple times I have used this tactic I felt pretty cheap by doing it, and was not happy about myself even though I avoided the loss. It just seems to me like a desperate man's tactic, where you know you have been defeated, but you're being childish about it and decide to draw at any price.

I've also heard that at top level tournaments, repeating the same move again is basically equivalent to forfeiture of the game, so GM's will not do so, even if it means their position will become very disadvantageous and perhaps even cost them the game.

Personally I think that the individual who initiated the 3-fold repitition/perpetual check should automatically forfeit the game. I think we should all be held to a higher standard in chess. It is a game of the mind, and if you lost because your opponent made better moves, drawing by something as inane as repeating a move 3 times or perpetual check just seems pathetic & childish (no offense to anyone). What do you guys think? Any and all opinions are welcome!

I'm a pretty numerical kinda guy and I see it that if i can get 0.5 rather then 0 I will take the half a point at any cost even if it is childish and pathetic.

Now even though I object to it I also accept that it is a rule set in place and I will use any rule at my disposal to change the outcome of the game to my advantage (My opponant can also do this so it's level ground).

rexbo wrote:

I'm a pretty numerical kinda guy and I see it that if i can get 0.5 rather then 0 I will take the half a point at any cost even if it is childish and pathetic.

Now even though I object to it I also accept that it is a rule set in place and I will use any rule at my disposal to change the outcome of the game to my advantage (My opponant can also do this so it's level ground).

---

Yeah of course you're right, especially if it's a tournament. But I'm saying, if you had a say, would you prefer for that rule to not exist at all, or would you leave it as it is?

It's part of the game.  Dishonourable would be to break the rules, not follow them.  If you're in an apparently losing position and you throw the board at your opponent, that's dishonourable.  Finding a draw is fine, if it induces the opponent to throw the board then he is dishonoured.  Qapla!

let's say you are a GM that's playing for €50,000. You win it all when you draw your last match and your a piece down..

 

Now you suddenly get the chance to use perpetual check to draw the match.. well hell your just using legal moves and your opponent is just unlucky that he's trapped..

Guys, I think you misunderstood my question... I'm not saying if it's ok to use when it's an accepted rule! Of course if you're playing in a big tournament, or if money is at stake, and you can use this rule for your advantage, obviously you SHOULD!

What I'm saying is, do you think that it would be better if this rule didn't exist at all? i.e. it would be illegal to do so for anyone. I definitely think so!

I like the rule the way it is.  To win, a player must be able to checkmate.  If one player can force an infinite repetition, then there is no way for the other to meet the win condition.  If neither player can win, a draw seems perfectly fair.  It is up to the player with the better position to avoid possible perpetual checks.  Without this rule, I doubt the game would be as fun.

someone_british wrote:

I've also heard that at top level tournaments, repeating the same move again is basically equivalent to forfeiture of the game, so GM's will not do so, even if it means their position will become very disadvantageous and perhaps even cost them the game.

---

 First off, this is simply false. Whoever told you that was making it up. GMs draw by repetition and perpetual check if they can manage it from a worse position.

 

Is it dishonorable to take a piece that your opponent blundered for free? Of course not, you take the piece.

 

Is it dishonorable to checkmate your opponent if they could have prevented it with a different move on their previous turn? Of course not, you checkmate them because you saw and they didn't. That's what makes you the winner, you did something better than they did.

 

When you are losing, how do you think you got into a losing position? Your opponent took advantage of your mistakes. Allowing a repetition if you are trying to win is a mistake, just like overlooking allowing a checkmate or giving up a free piece. In this case, if you see the repetition and your opponent did not, then you have demonstrated that you are better at your opponent in that one instance. If you are losing then your opponent did better than you earlier. Seems even to me, why would a draw be a dishonorable result? 

Its perfectly alright for a threefold repetition, you give him three turns to be convinced its a draw.

Loomis is correct, i don't know who told you that but they are wrong GM's sometimes repeat moves in order to make the time control and they most certainly draw by perpetual check and the three fold repetition rule. As for me i don't feel the game would be better without the rule and i will draw a game by either method if given the chance and won't feel like i cheated my opponent, it is up to the player with the better position to watch out for any drawing possibilities by his opponent.

the same objection applies to forcing a draw by stalemate while behind in material. Why, the same objection applies to checkmating the opponent by a simple combination that opponent missed - the honourable thing to do would be to warn opponent and advice them to retract their move? Aamof one does do that in very informal social chess!

As an englishwoman I suspect this is a caricature of the proverbial "british sense of fair play" - why would "someone_british" spell 'honourable' the yankee way?

Well, I think in endgames where there are very few pieces on the board, then 3-fold repititon or perpetual check draws are fine, but generally speaking I don't think it's fine when it's the middle game and the person initiating the perpetual check/three fold repition has other moves, but goes for those instead. Usually in the endgame you don't have a choice, but when you do have it (usually in middle games when there are still plenty of pieces on the board) then perosnally I think it's dishonorable and just cheapens the game.

normajeanyates wrote:

As an englishwoman I suspect this is a caricature of the proverbial "british sense of fair play" - why would "someone_british" spell 'honourable' the yankee way?

---

 That's because I'm not really british :) It's just a nickname!

Loomis is correct. Indeed, sometimes it requires a terrific combination to set up a forced repetition.

 It is worth noting, however, contrary to several assertions here, the term "perpetual check" does not exist in current rules, except in a "TD tip" in the US Chess Federation rules, where "perpetual check" is noted as a special case of "Triple occurrence of position." The FIDE rules are clear and to the point:

9.2     
The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves)
   1.is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
   2.has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, 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. Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer in this manner be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently.

Now, consider a position from practical play. I had Black and was on move in this position.

 

Like I said, everyone here is right... I guess what I was referring to was not the principle, but if the person who's initiating it has other options, especially in the middle game, but chooses to end the game by doing that instead, I believe it cheapens the game.

someone_british wrote: Like I said, everyone here is right... I guess what I was referring to was not the principle, but if the person who's initiating it has other options, especially in the middle game, but chooses to end the game by doing that instead, I believe it cheapens the game.

---

 I don't care if it's the opening.  If I'm losing, I'll go for perpetual check whenever possible, no matter how many options I have.

No. I don't like those rules at all. I would prefer to see many games that are considered draws today turned into wins for the superior player. Checking someone repeatedly or repeating a position just to invoke a draw when you know you can't win is an insult to the other player and a dishonorable way of getting out of a bad situation. The only honorable thing to do once you have lost is to either resign or take the loss and get over it.

Marshal_Dillon wrote: No. I don't like those rules at all. I would prefer to see many games that are considered draws today turned into wins for the superior player. Checking someone repeatedly or repeating a position just to invoke a draw when you know you can't win is an insult to the other player and a dishonorable way of getting out of a bad situation.

---

 THANK YOU!! Finally, the voice of reason!

someone_british wrote:

 

drawing by something as inane as repeating a move 3 times or perpetual check just seems pathetic & childish 

---

 Huh?  That's rediculous. Of course it's perfectly fine, fair, rulebound, and logical.  What's pathetic is making judgments about the method of getting a draw.  Any win, loss, or draw is what it is, nothing less, nothing more.  If you don't like it, you can be the one to make a different third move. Then you won't have to whine about the rules. Perpetual check is avoidable if you can just think three moves ahead.  Not too much to ask.

i Just put up a game where, i did the perpetual check. im not sure if i should have though. i thought i may have had the win, take a look at my game and let me know.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/cool-game-draw-or-fight