Why did you allow the perpetual check if you wanted to win?
It's all your fault.
Forced Draw almost seems Illegal...
Sort:
I'd say that had I been you here, I would have missed this force draw as well. It's somewhat subtle. I don't think you have to make a big deal about really "preparing" against these situations, but maybe you can just look for any potential ways black could even attempt to comeback in a game. I wouldn't sweat this too much though.
I think it deserves a draw because black was able to infinitely stall white, preventing him to do anything because he has to take care of his king first.
If both sides cannot progress, it's considered a draw.
So, op is saying the draw by perpetual check rule needs to be changed?
If we can not post pictures can we post links to pictures?
So tempting...
I always tend to look at chess and the object of each side as being slightly different, with a draw demonstrating this principle. Take a game where if both players were equal, played a flawless game (likely imposible) and reached a decision of 1-0, it would be said White won the postion by virtue of having the first move correct? Therefore, the object of the game for White is to win whereas since Black starts out EVERY game in a responsive pattern (i.e. White moves, then Black moves), you cannot really say that Black's object to the game is to win, since he/she has the opportunity to at least come up to total equality, if not an outright win.
That is why Black in chess has what are called "Drawing Odds" in that Black can play to draw OR win. But because White has the first move, he must always prove the win.
Bottom line, it goes to say:
White's objective: win the game.
Black's objective: do not lose the game.
That is why the repetition, stalemate and 50 move draws are all there. I might suggest reading on the Official Rules of Chess to get a better understanding of the drawing process.
Finally, had the White pieces been the drawing force, this would be a whole different matter.
Jun 23, 2012
0
#9
Wasn't that game a clear win for black ? White's Q was badly positioned.
In fact, white should be happy with draw. 
IT SHOULD BE LISTED AS A STALEMATE===
silentiarius wrote:
Why did you allow the perpetual check if you wanted to win?
It's all your fault.
+1
Can submit this to Tactic Trainer.
Jun 23, 2012
0
#14
I wonder if white has better than accepting the draw after Bxg2. Anyone with Houdini or Rybka?
both
Chess has been around for so long that there is a Roman goddess named for it. The rules are the rules. They're not going to change because you don't like them.
Jun 24, 2012
0
#17
These positions occur frequently in chess,i would'nt worry about it its not an exact science.
wannaplay111 wrote:
So I am about to win the game when suddenly my opponent gets my King in such a position that he gets checked and has to move, gets checked again and moves back to the same spot and so on. In other words I couldnt do anything but move my King back and forth.. The game ended with a draw because of repitition.
My point is that my opponent could have made another move but I couldn't, shouldn't he be the one loosing instead of a draw for us both???
Furthermore I would like to ask how to prepare for such situations? I mean I am watching out for a lot of things but not if my opponent could force a draw any minute...
After 1...Bxg2, 2.f3 solves all of the problems. If he plays 2...Bxf1 then 3.Rxf1 and his exposed K and the weak isolated pawn duo on d5, e5 cause his position to fall apart. With this being a 10 minute game, you didn't have enough time to find the right move.
vengence69 wrote:
I always tend to look at chess and the object of each side as being slightly different, with a draw demonstrating this principle. Take a game where if both players were equal, played a flawless game (likely imposible) and reached a decision of 1-0, it would be said White won the postion by virtue of having the first move correct? Therefore, the object of the game for White is to win whereas since Black starts out EVERY game in a responsive pattern (i.e. White moves, then Black moves), you cannot really say that Black's object to the game is to win, since he/she has the opportunity to at least come up to total equality, if not an outright win.
That is why Black in chess has what are called "Drawing Odds" in that Black can play to draw OR win. But because White has the first move, he must always prove the win.
Bottom line, it goes to say:
White's objective: win the game.
Black's objective: do not lose the game.
That is why the repetition, stalemate and 50 move draws are all there. I might suggest reading on the Official Rules of Chess to get a better understanding of the drawing process.
Finally, had the White pieces been the drawing force, this would be a whole different matter.
" One of my greatest leaps in chess was when I realised that Black should fight for a win instead of steering for equality." - Bobby Fischer
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
I wonder if white has better than accepting the draw after Bxg2. Anyone with Houdini or Rybka?
Yup, my Rybka says 0,00 and then variation mentioned on the 1st page or 1...Bxg2 2. Bh6+ Kg8 3. Kxg2 then perpetual check on g4 & f3.
Everytime you want to play Rfe1, then Qg4 threaten discovered check.
So I am about to win the game when suddenly my opponent gets my King in such a position that he gets checked and has to move, gets checked again and moves back to the same spot and so on. In other words I couldnt do anything but move my King back and forth.. The game ended with a draw because of repitition.
My point is that my opponent could have made another move but I couldn't, shouldn't he be the one loosing instead of a draw for us both???
Furthermore I would like to ask how to prepare for such situations? I mean I am watching out for a lot of things but not if my opponent could force a draw any minute...