Draw by repetition?
Sort:
That's what has happened to me. And then it said, "drawn by repetition" I'm pretty sure. I think the same position must be repeated three times...
thanks...if he puts me in check...that'll probably be it...*crosses fingers*. Might seem like I'm getting off easy with a draw, but the way I see it...he has to make those moves or else he'll lose out on pieces. I'm not willing to give up winning a piece, and he's not willing to give up his advantage...
I think the formal term for that is "perpetual check" and it is a draw.
the perpetual check rule was removed quite some time ago since it will either lead to either the 50 move rule or draw by repetition
I looked at the game and it looks like you should have either blocked with your rook or moved completely out of the way somewhere. You had far too much advantage to try for a draw, and too many options to settle for a self-inflicted perpetual check. Usually, a draw by perpetual check occurs when the perpetual check is inevitable.
neneko wrote: the perpetual check rule was removed quite some time ago since it will either lead to either the 50 move rule or draw by repetition
Is that so? It's still in the Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess, and I just bought that last month.
Ok...just wanna announce that the rule actually is in effect...I just got the draw by repetition. Thanks everyone.
draw by repetition is still a rule, three reps and its drawn... And 'purpetual check' is pretty much referring to a 'tactic' where you can save a losing game by getting your opponent into a position where you can keep checking him and he can't stop you... drawing the game.
JorickHorn wrote: I looked at the game and it looks like you should have either blocked with your rook or moved completely out of the way somewhere. You had far too much advantage to try for a draw, and too many options to settle for a self-inflicted perpetual check. Usually, a draw by perpetual check occurs when the perpetual check is inevitable.
I looked at the game and am sure darkpawn threw away an easy win
Maybe it was premature to go for draw...I was down a queen...I think I was up a rook and and knight or bishop. For my part, when I'm up a queen...even when I'm down a few other major pieces...I can still control the flow of events.
So being down the queen...I guess I got too nervous. This is the game if anybody is wondering...
JorickHorn wrote: neneko wrote: the perpetual check rule was removed quite some time ago since it will either lead to either the 50 move rule or draw by repetition
Is that so? It's still in the Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess, and I just bought that last month.
Of course the checking side, asserting that he can continuously check the king, should offer draw. The 3-repetition and 50-move rules operate because the other side may insist on continuing the game. It happened in the past where a game went on for days and days. 
Charlie91> The 3-repetition ... operate[s] because the other side may insist on continuing the game. It happened in the past where a game went on for days and days.
I was just reviewing a correspondence game between Perth and Paris featured in the Chess Player's Chronicle in the 1840s. Both sides literally spent weeks repeating the same positions over and over and over again since the threefold repetition rule didn't yet exist. Fortunately, a sixfold repetition rule was in force even back then so the game was played to completion. Paris tried to force a win, and eventually lost.
this also happened to me when i had the upper position on an opponent. i had played another game where it let me and my opponent do the same move 10 times in a row with no draw. im used to yahoo having a draw after 3. so i got very upset when i saw that this happened in a game with a superior opponent, yet when i got the upper hand it was a draw. said draw by repitition. maybe it was a misjudgement on my part, but it didn't give me a draw in previous games. this is why i stated to my opponent, that it was a weak way to do this. and i thought he was cheating. he then said he would report me for slander when i told him he was weak! whatever!
Doesn't the draw actually have to be "claimed" by one or the other party? Repeating a position three times shouldn't automatically result in a draw, but instead give both players the option of claiming a draw that the other cannot turn down. At least that's how I thought it worked on Chess.com: when in a thrice-repeated position, the "offer draw" button changes to "claim draw"; click it to claim the draw.
Maybe I'm thinking of a different chess site.
eatyualives> this is why i stated to my opponent, that it was a weak way to do this. and i thought he was cheating.
Calling your opponents names when they followed the rules isn't good form.
eatyualives> it let me and my opponent do the same move 10 times in a row with no draw... et when i got the upper hand it was a draw. said draw by repitition.
In real life, you don't automatically draw... you have to notice and claim it. On chess.com, you need to notice it and press the "Claim Draw" button. The button appears whenever it would be valid to claim a draw by repetition. Also, the entire position must be repeated. You can't just move a piece back and forth three times (a common mistake).
the last 6 moves have repetitions of moves 1 and 2 for me and my opponent. He puts me in check from square A, and I move to another square. He puts me in check from square B, and I move back to my original square. Then he puts me in check from square A. I'm at a disadvantage so I'm hoping for a draw. My question is...will the program automatically draw for repeated moves after a while?