Is perpetual check lame?

All is fair in love and war.

Not again...

i play to win. i also play to not lose. drawing = not losing. hence, drawing = good.

Not lame at all.  It's hardly a losing position if you have way to draw.  The ability to actually recognize it and pull it off is downright admirable.

Thanks. Got it (sorry if it a commonly asked question. At least I didn't ask a question about resigning )

yeah sometimes it's all you've got.  i like it.  been scolded for using it 'round here, but it's not in my nature to care about a scold or 2.

I thought 1 d4 was what 1 c4 players played when they're trying for a win.

It is lame, but if you are in an important game(ie a tourney or something) and you need to draw - its all fair game. Half a point is better than no point. If they allow you to do it they deserve to be drawn rather than to win.

It's a completely normal rule.

I don't know why, instead of discussing chess strategy and tactics, we have to keep arguing about the merits of en passant, perpetual check, resigning etc.

not quite sure why I bothered read all of these posts, all seem a bit 'girlie' to me, an' most me ex-gfs wudda bin ashamed to whinge in such a manner

I think perpetual check is one of the coolest tactics.

All you or your opponent has to do is state that it's perpetual check, and it's considered a draw. If it really is perpetual check, I mean.

For the same reason we keep arguing whether databases and books should be permitted in correspondence chess: when folks are new at the game, even if they've been "new" for many decades, their naive ideas from other games far less alluring than chess infect their understanding of Caissa's gift.

It's not technically a rule -- eventually you can claim the draw under the three-fold repetition or 50 move rules, but you shouldn't have to because you're opponent should recognize the futility of playing on and cede the half-point.

Good point, TheGrobe. Players often speak of perpetual check as if it were a rule. Indeed, it may have been in the rules in thims past. However, FIDE rules use the term "draw by repetition" or "three-fold repetition". Perpetual check is but one instance of repetition, which can be accompished without check.

Imagine in the end game you could force a draw with king vs King + Pawn...

would you consider a draw to be worth playing for?

if you got it would you feel guilty?

same thing with forcing a perpetual draw really I think...

Good point, Brian.

If you have your opponent in check and they can't get out, why isn't it a win for you? I've read that this is the rule in Go. I guess there's a certain amount of subjectivity in rule making.

This makes no sense. If you're in check and you can't get out, it's checkmate. If you can get out, it's just check.

I think it's a misunderstanding of the word "perpetual".  Perpetual meaning a series of repeated and unavoidable checks.  Checkmate, on the other hand is "inescapable check".