It's a stupid rule. If a player has to resort to such measures - he clearly has run out of options, and has a losing position.
The 'threefold repetition rule' should apply to the player who initiates the check, and repeats the same move three times. That player should then lose the game.
My bad - any move really.
It's a stupid rule. If a player has to resort to such measures - he clearly has run out of options, and has a losing position.
The 'threefold repetition rule' should apply to the player who initiates the check, and repeats the same move three times. That player should then lose the game.
Except he doesn't have a losing position because the opponents king is undefended. The entire point of the game is to attack the other guys king while defending your own. It doesn't matter how much you have pointed at your opponents king, if you've left yours completely defenseless you don't deserve to win.
It's a stupid rule. If a player has to resort to such measures - he clearly has run out of options, and has a losing position.
The 'threefold repetition rule' should apply to the player who initiates the check, and repeats the same move three times. That player should then lose the game.
I personally disagree. Having to prevent forced repetition from your opponent is part of the strategy, part of the fun in chess. It adds a new strategical element to take care of. It makes games more exciting and forces players to be more strategical and more mindful of their position..
Learning to identify perpetual checks is part of the game, why do you think this rule exists in professional chess tournaments? Just the other day I played someone, and during the endgame he was up a piece but I found a tactic that either forces him to take the draw or lose his advantage, he stubbornly didn't take the draw and I eventually queened and won the game.
Also, most important part is that it stops people from playing dead draw situations. Like, I'd be in a position where there's absolutely no way anyone can get and advantage (usually in a bishop and pawn ending) and the other player just starts spamming pre-moves to try and win with the clock. I'd say this situation is 10 times dumber than the rule you're complaining about.
This comment says it all.
Learning to identify perpetual checks is part of the game, why do you think this rule exists in professional chess tournaments? Just the other day I played someone, and during the endgame he was up a piece but I found a tactic that either forces him to take the draw or lose his advantage, he stubbornly didn't take the draw and I eventually queened and won the game.
Also, most important part is that it stops people from playing dead draw situations. Like, I'd be in a position where there's absolutely no way anyone can get and advantage (usually in a bishop and pawn ending) and the other player just starts spamming pre-moves to try and win with the clock. I'd say this situation is 10 times dumber than the rule you're complaining about.
The clock rule is just dumb.
That's because the dead position rule is dumb.
Apart from the fact that FIDE doesn't give any way of checking if a position is dead and nobody has managed to produce any algorithm to check, it's a catch 22.
If I draw MC, I can just wait till he moves and claim the position is dead.
If the arbiter points out that there are are series of legal moves leading to checkmate, I can just refer him to the rule (art. 5.2.2)
The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
and agree that there are such series, but insist that neither player can checkmate with any such series, because the position is dead and that immediately ends the game.
And art. 6.9
Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by thatplayer [sic]. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.
can never apply. You cannot lose a game on time.
At some time strictly prior to the expiration of the allotted time it will become impossible for the player having the move to complete a move (e.g. owing to the necessity of any piece to be moved exceeding the speed of light).
At that point neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves, so by art. 5.2.2 (above) the game is immediately ended and the result is a draw. The subsequent expiration of the allotted time is irrelevant.
Do you mind if a woman does it?
It's a stupid rule. If a player has to resort to such measures - he clearly has run out of options, and has a losing position.
The 'threefold repetition rule' should apply to the player who initiates the check, and repeats the same move three times. That player should then lose the game.
Except he doesn't have a losing position because the opponents king is undefended. The entire point of the game is to attack the other guys king while defending your own. It doesn't matter how much you have pointed at your opponents king, if you've left yours completely defenseless you don't deserve to win.
But he cannot win this way. He can only use gamemechanics to avoid a loss, and force a draw.
It's a stupid rule. If a player has to resort to such measures - he clearly has run out of options, and has a losing position.
The 'threefold repetition rule' should apply to the player who initiates the check, and repeats the same move three times. That player should then lose the game.
Except he doesn't have a losing position because the opponents king is undefended. The entire point of the game is to attack the other guys king while defending your own. It doesn't matter how much you have pointed at your opponents king, if you've left yours completely defenseless you don't deserve to win.
But he cannot win this way. He can only use gamemechanics to avoid a loss, and force a draw.
Yeah... that's why it's a draw. If you wanted to win you shouldn't have left your king vulnerable to perpetual check.
It's a stupid rule. If a player has to resort to such measures - he clearly has run out of options, and has a losing position.
The 'threefold repetition rule' should apply to the player who initiates the check, and repeats the same move three times. That player should then lose the game.
Except he doesn't have a losing position because the opponents king is undefended. The entire point of the game is to attack the other guys king while defending your own. It doesn't matter how much you have pointed at your opponents king, if you've left yours completely defenseless you don't deserve to win.
But he cannot win this way. He can only use gamemechanics to avoid a loss, and force a draw.
Yeah... that's why it's a draw. If you wanted to win you shouldn't have left your king vulnerable to perpetual check.
Which brings me back to my initial point.. It's a horrible gamemechanic, and the player that initiates mechanic should lose the game.
Most dumbest rule I see in my life. Usually used by people who is about to lose and they try to end the game in a “legal” draw. They’re just cheaters.
Which brings me back to my initial point.. It's a horrible gamemechanic, and the player that initiates mechanic should lose the game.
It's a perfect game mechanic for a game that is entirely about defending your king while attacking the opponent's king. Don't leave your King vulnerable if you want to win. If you attack your opponents king but neglect your own's safety you didn't deserve the win.
I think this rule should be removed.
I know mister genius u don't have to tell me that
Rules r here to make the game better but this rule makes it worse.
@DaveRochelson's fault. Don't blame the rule. Blame yourself as this is a skill error