NEVER GIVE UP. TRY AGAIN.
Do you think prepetual check/three fold repetition is honorable?
Sort:
"sometimes a draw is vitally important when money is at stake and a draw guarentees it, while a loss would loose it. "
That just gives you more incentive to play for the win rather than the draw, doesn't it? 
You're more than welcome to create a variant in which such draws are considered losses. I have a question, though: what would be the wording of the rule to determine which player must forfeit the game in a repetitious position?
silentfilmstar13 wrote: You're more than welcome to create a variant in which such draws are considered losses. I have a question, though: what would be the wording of the rule to determine which player must forfeit the game in a repetitious position?
In the case of repetitious position you must make a different move after the third repetition or forfeit if you fail to make a different move. Whichever players turn it is to move after the third repetition of the position would be the one to forfeit should they make the same move a fourth time.
Marshal_Dillon wrote:
Seriously, though, if FIDE announced tomorrow that the rules of chess have changed and they have eliminated 90% of the drawing possibilities would you quit playing chess or would you hush up and learn to live with it?
Well, let's ask about a much more likely scenario: If FIDE decides tomorrow to keep all of the rules regarding draws, will you quit playing chess or will you hush up and learn to live with it?
You actually don't need to invent a chess variant to have the rule you want. You could take up Xiangqi ("Chinese Chess"), which has rules to make perpetual checkers lose.
well then what would you do about people who are 'losing' and force their opponents into a position that repeats and their opponent will have to make the final repetition? Wouldnt this be extremely "dishonourable" since now the loser who you have said should just accept the beating that is coming too him, has now come away with a win!
its the stupid ethic of the elite's...
"cheap tactics" are a must use at everything,every level.I mean,there is a rule,and you gotta take advantage of it..the reason you are feeling cheap and being unhappy is because you have been following the ethic--which was created by nobody but the elite who wanted to show that they are different from others and to humiliate people who arent like them.
May 15, 2008
0
#69
hmmm i dont really like the rule, the only reason that anybody would use it is if they are losing! And in chess you usually win by playing better than your ooponent. you shouldnt get the same points for playing a lot worse than your opponent. if i draw i game by repeating moves then i will consider myself to have really lost the game because my opponent played better than me and forced me to take less than a win
sstteevveenn wrote: well then what would you do about people who are 'losing' and force their opponents into a position that repeats and their opponent will have to make the final repetition? Wouldnt this be extremely "dishonourable" since now the loser who you have said should just accept the beating that is coming too him, has now come away with a win!
Precisely what I was getting at. Thank you, sstteevveenn.
sstteevveenn wrote: well then what would you do about people who are 'losing' and force their opponents into a position that repeats and their opponent will have to make the final repetition? Wouldnt this be extremely "dishonourable" since now the loser who you have said should just accept the beating that is coming too him, has now come away with a win!
Show me an example of this. You cannot force me to make a move into repetition unless your pieces are all in the same places they were previously so it is YOU who are repeating the position, not me.
Example would be perpetual check
My king is on square A. Your queen checks from square B. That is the first instance of the position.
I retreat my king to square C, but you check again with the king from square D forcing me back to square A.
You check me again with the queen from square B. This is the second instance of the position.
Back to square C for me but you check me again with the queen from square D driving me back onto square A.
Now you check me again from square B. This is the third instance of that position.
I move my king to square C again and you persist in checking me from square D and I retreat back to square A again.
Now. Since you would forfeit the game by checking me again with the queen from square B while my king is on square A and nothing else has moved, you are now forced to make another move. If you check me again with the queen from the same square, then it is YOU and not I who has repeated the position 4 times. Do you see now?
judgeofthenight wrote:
its the stupid ethic of the elite's...
"cheap tactics" are a must use at everything,every level.I mean,there is a rule,and you gotta take advantage of it..the reason you are feeling cheap and being unhappy is because you have been following the ethic--which was created by nobody but the elite who wanted to show that they are different from others and to humiliate people who arent like them.
Cheap tactics are a tool used by small minded people to get things they don't deserve and couldn't otherwise get by legitimate means. I would like to have a diamond studded Rolex watch but does that entitle me to use the cheap tactic of sneaking up behind someone who has one and clubbing them over the head for it? That would be theft and theft is precisely what you do when you use a cheap tactic to worm your way into a draw from a lost position.
A compromise scoring system might work where the superior player gets .75 point and the other gets .25 to give some recognition to them, but giving them equality they haven't earned on the board is not right.
De-Lar wrote:
Just out of curiosity Marshal_Dillon what would you do in this position? play to the death?
Or since black initiated the three move repetition, the win goes to white i guess hey?
No. I already said earlier that some draws would have to be allowed. In that position where the pawns are locked and no other moves are possible a draw would have to be permissible. I am referring to positions where other moves are available, but instead of making one of those a player chooses to perpetually check or repeat the position just to end a game they can't win.
A good example would be the game posted either here or in the other thread on this subject, I think the game was posted by Loomis where he was down two pawns and facing certain death then sacrificed in order to get the perpetual. If my rule were in effect he would not even consider sacrificing to get the perpetual because he would lose if he tried it. He would have to play or resign. If he manages to get a win down material or manages to get both kings stripped bare for a draw then great. There would be nothing cheap about those situations at all. The other player would have to had to blunder tremendously to allow that to happen.
King_William wrote: Marshal_Dillon wrote: lanceuppercut_239 wrote: exiledcanuck wrote:
I don't understand how one can even begin to think that any act(that is logically within the rules) stopping your opponent winning could be construde as cheap/unfair/unsportsmanlike.
Imagine what the rules of chess would look like if you added in a clause that said "playing for the draw is prohibited" which is pretty much what your asking us to say we agree with.
Exactly. Imagine a football team down by 3 points, in field goal range, with 2 seconds left in the game. Is it dishonorable for them to kick the field goal? Or should they just give up and "take the beating that is coming" like a man, as one of our friends here has (jokingly, I think) suggested?
You choose a poor example with football. In football the game continues until a winner is decided. There are no draws. Eliminating most of the conditions that are considered a draw and giving the win to one player or the other would simplify the game of chess immensely. In a real battle, if I bring 50,000 men to the field and you bring 50,000 men to the field and you make a tactical error resulting in the loss of 30,000 of your men, how do you figure you deserve a draw?
And you chose an even worse example since in the battle you are referring to, a small crew of 10 or less in a high-power artillery weapons scenario can wipe out you entire 50 000 foot soldier army...
Think about what you just wrote. We are comparing an army of chess men to a real army. In chess both sides start out with equal material.Nobody starts out with an army of easily dispatched foot soldiers facing the other players nuclear weapons. Your example is poor and irrelevant.
someone_british wrote: Like I said, everyone here is right... I guess what I was referring to was not the principle, but if the person who's initiating it has other options, especially in the middle game, but chooses to end the game by doing that instead, I believe it cheapens the game.
This doesn't make any sense. Without this rule you'd need another rule to say you couldn't check more than once in the same position. That would be a silly rule. Perpetual check doesn't cheapen the game. Obviously the other side couldn't bring the game to a conclusion.
So do away with perpetual check? What about the 50 move rule or the touch-move rule? I forced a stalemate with the latter one once and have no qualms about it. As others have said, a game is played by its rules and using them to your advantage isn't a dishonour and doesn't cheapen the game. It actually livens it by avoiding disputes that would otherwise arise or ending games that would otherwise go on forever.
Surely someone who falls into perpetual check has not adequately protected their most prized piece. Regardless of how many pieces ahead they may be, would you say that they "deserve" to win?
Marshal_Dillon wrote: judgeofthenight wrote:
its the stupid ethic of the elite's...
"cheap tactics" are a must use at everything,every level.I mean,there is a rule,and you gotta take advantage of it..the reason you are feeling cheap and being unhappy is because you have been following the ethic--which was created by nobody but the elite who wanted to show that they are different from others and to humiliate people who arent like them.
Cheap tactics are a tool used by small minded people to get things they don't deserve and couldn't otherwise get by legitimate means. I would like to have a diamond studded Rolex watch but does that entitle me to use the cheap tactic of sneaking up behind someone who has one and clubbing them over the head for it? That would be theft and theft is precisely what you do when you use a cheap tactic to worm your way into a draw from a lost position.
One example is a person following the rules to obtain a legitimate result. The other is a jailable offense? I don't see the connection.
Marshal_Dillon wrote: judgeofthenight wrote:
its the stupid ethic of the elite's...
"cheap tactics" are a must use at everything,every level.I mean,there is a rule,and you gotta take advantage of it..the reason you are feeling cheap and being unhappy is because you have been following the ethic--which was created by nobody but the elite who wanted to show that they are different from others and to humiliate people who arent like them.
Cheap tactics are a tool used by small minded people to get things they don't deserve and couldn't otherwise get by legitimate means. I would like to have a diamond studded Rolex watch but does that entitle me to use the cheap tactic of sneaking up behind someone who has one and clubbing them over the head for it? That would be theft and theft is precisely what you do when you use a cheap tactic to worm your way into a draw from a lost position.
huh? If the other player is so superior how is it he got into a position where the other player can force a draw? There is no theft here. The player with the superior position couldn't convert it to a win so it was not quite superior enough.
tmr wrote: Marshal_Dillon wrote: judgeofthenight wrote:
its the stupid ethic of the elite's...
"cheap tactics" are a must use at everything,every level.I mean,there is a rule,and you gotta take advantage of it..the reason you are feeling cheap and being unhappy is because you have been following the ethic--which was created by nobody but the elite who wanted to show that they are different from others and to humiliate people who arent like them.
Cheap tactics are a tool used by small minded people to get things they don't deserve and couldn't otherwise get by legitimate means. I would like to have a diamond studded Rolex watch but does that entitle me to use the cheap tactic of sneaking up behind someone who has one and clubbing them over the head for it? That would be theft and theft is precisely what you do when you use a cheap tactic to worm your way into a draw from a lost position.
huh? If the other player is so superior how is it he got into a position where the other player can force a draw? There is no theft here. The player with the superior position couldn't convert it to a win so it was not quite superior enough.
Whoa, don't overload his brain here. He's still trying to figure out how a gambit is playable. After all, as soon as you have more material than your opponent you deserve to win, and if they do anything that makes you not win then they cheated you. Let's not talk about the subtleties of what actually makes a superior position, as opposed to what he wishes were a superior position. For instance, the following position is a dead draw. No person in his right mind would give either side the advantage. Marshal just wishes that this were a good position for Black so he could stop having to think once he feels he deserves to win.
Don't be stupid. That's how knights move. It has nothing to do with many of the current forms of drawing being disallowed.
LMAO, why on earth would you call somebody stupid after the argument you're trying to make.
There is nothing stupid about the argument I am trying to make. If a group of respected GM's with the power to influence FIDE to change the rules disallowing most forms of draws were making these recommendations you wouldn't call any of them stupid.
...They're not. There's probably a reason for that... like it's stupid.
Similar argument: If a group of respected scientists wanted to modify the metric system of measurement for no good reason, you wouldn't call them stupid.
They wouldn't... 'cause it's stupid.