In Xianqi and Shogi, a stalemate is a loss for the stalemated, and someone who repeats the position three times automatically forfeits the game.

Actually, in Shatranj, the direct predecessor of chess as we know it, not only a stalemate was considered a loss, but the king being left alone on the board was a loss too. These rules were necessary, because the king in Shanranj had greater relative power to the rest of the pieces then in modern chess.

I believe that Lasker once suggested a compromise solution (the spirit of which was already mentioned in that thread) - a system where a player can get a wide range of points for the game - for example, in a case of checkmate the player who delivered the checkmate got a 10, while the player who lost got 0, the player who stalemated his opponent got 8, while his opponent got 2, etc.

So some ideas which were mentioned by the OP and his apologists aren't that impossible as they seem.

The advantage of current rules of modern chess is that they can produce ingenious drawing combinations of wit of the player and position of the pieces equalizing the brute force.

The OP's concerns are still ridiculuous for the reasons already said. If the "superior" player allows a perpetual check, then he wasn't that "superior" in the first place.

What about if the sides are equal?

OMG, I can't believe anyone would even launch this inane thread.

Draws by repetition are part of the game.

But then we've had numerous threads about clock/time management (posts whining about vacation use and "slow" opponents), opponents who won't checkmate when they have a won position (another forum whine), opponents who don't resign prematurely (waaaa).

Get over it and just have fun already!

Frankly If I find my self in a position what I call newer end I have no Patience and I rather make a foolish move if I can in order to end the game or I offer a resign, People doing that has no imaginations and consideration for the opponent.

King5678

it is only a players lack of vision that alows it to hppen in the first place so it is simply fair play

I suppose I'm in the minority here, as I agree with the OP. I was taught to avoid doing so as the attacking player.

I figure if it's good enough for these guys it's good enough for me.

I usually ( if passable ) I go for the checkmate not fulling araund therefore   stalemate as far I remember never happend .

I prefer If passable a clean win instead of Perpetual chess, in my opinion if you are at that position I think it would be a good idea to keep your attention to the game, and stay alert, but if is not passable why not have a re-mach I think is much Honorable then win or loose that way,

King5678

Of course it is.  If you fall victim to this it's your own fault for allowing it to happen and your opponent should be commended for finding the draw from an otherwise lost position.

Is it honorable to take a draw by perpetual check when you are in a slightly better position, against a higher-rated opponent?

Hmmm, if you don't have confidence in your ability to successfully convert your better position then I see no issue with it.

What's not honourable is doing so from a won position that you could convert in order to manipulate the seeding of the next round of a tournament to your benefit.

protect your king, perpetual check is not losing or winning, it's a draw.
of course its honourable

If a person can get out of pepetual then he or she would win the game.If you cant get out of it.Then you did something wrong by allowing the perpetual.Therefore you did not have a winning game.If you dont want the game to be drawn by repetition,make a different move!!! Simple as that. When both sides repeat moves to not give advantage to their opponent.I cant see anything wrong with it.

I think that the rule is fine. You may have a bad position, but by trying to get the draw, you also increase the possibility that your opponent may slip up due to frustration, boredom, or lack of concentration. Remember, chess is a mind game, outthink your opponent.

No, not at all it's part of the game! Avoid the loss no matter what!

If you do like the rule,s off chess then do play the game, its as easy as that.

As I see it, this is exactly what these two rules do.  They create a higher standard for winning.  Since both sides should be well aware of the rules, the winner must create a checkmate situation that the opponent can't squirm out of even by these means.  If I draw a game by three-fold repitition, It means I have found a successful counter to your attack that you cannot figure your way around; thus, you have not defeated me by this higher standard.  In perpetual check, I have put you in a position in which you can never attack my king because you must spend all of your time defending yours from my attack; thus your attack was sound, but your defense was not, and chess is about both.

I agree, although I would suggest that if your defense was not sound then by extension neither was your attack.  Any counterplay is acceptable and if you've failed to prevent it then you've failed to earn the win.

 prepetual check It doesn'thappen that often, but depends on how many peaces ( 2-3-4 ) then depends on the position you find your self in, In my opinion roles or not, I think it would be honorable to talk over between the players and if in accord start a new game, remember it's only a game, eater one, I think still need to go and make a living for him or her self.

The only thing I don't like is while the game is on, ( no special treat (no near checkmate ) to ether player ), one of them resign with no reason given with plenty of time remaining, that I think is not nice to do.

Recently while a game was in process, abaut the 5-6Th move or  Moore or less, my opponent lost his Quinn, he made a comment about him self and resign, I offered a re mach, but no answer, at least answer back with a yes or no thanks.

I believe we are all humans and as such with feelings, I think in any given circumstances communication is a good thing.