Do you think prepetual check/three fold repetition is honorable?
Sort:
May 16, 2008
0
#82
I did not read all answers on this subject. But for me it is clear: As long as the game goes on, all reglementary moves are allowed. The one who did the best moves wins: the best moves are those who lead to victory or to draw. All the rest is emotional talking.
ya i agree when you lose take the loss and forget it, take what you've learned form mistakes and correct them in your next game, and then if all else fail in a game and you know your going to lose being a good sport resign with class and just move forward. dont get stuck on one loss. it will only you hold you back from your next win!
I've only read the last 2 pages of posts. I would say that as long as you are playing within the rules of chess, then it is not dishonorable. Frustrating? Definitely.
You just can't allow yourself to be put into these situations.
i do believe that the 3 turn repetition is a good rule to prevent games from sticking in the same situation, but the stupid prepertual check is just dumb, you should make a rule that if the repitition involves check then it is a draw but you lose half the points of the draw 0.25 - 0.75, if it doesn't involve check then it is like drawing by agreement, it's each players free choice.
May 16, 2008
0
#86
at the end of the day it is there to use for everyone,i use it to my advantage,if it was not there i would not use it then would have to except losing,you could see it as you have done well to get your pieces into a postion to do it,i have started doing repitition check then realised i could checkmate them.so i use it to give me time to figure out how to get out off it.I think the unlucky one would be more determind to finish them off quicker next time if possible
The point of chess is not to win material but to checkmate. It's the defender's right, no... duty! to do everything in his power to thwart his opponent. Perpetual check is the chessboard equivalent of "The best defense is a good offense."
May 16, 2008
0
#89
As an experienced player I find these topics quite refreshing. I never think about the rules in this way and it is great to have a fresh perspective. I don't have opinions about whether a rule "makes sense" (en passant), or whether a rule is "fair" (three-fold repetition, perpetual check, and especially stalemate).
Great forum topic!
There's a lot of discussoin that goes on in these forums (especially in the endgame department) centering around how to win from a "won" position. Part of the excitement of an endgame (and, perhaps, a middlegame in which one player has a decisive advantage) is the question of whether the player with the decisive advanage will be able to convert it to a win. To win at chess, you not only have to play better than the other person, but you have to play enough better to secure a win when a draw could be a possibility. This is why I like the rules the way they stand-without the draw rules, we wouldn't have any more of those exciting positions in which one player can only convert his advantage to a win with best play.
So, Marshal, does black deserve the win in the second sequence by sstteevveenn in post 110? Perhaps you'll have to reword your rule. Maybe it could go like this: Whosoever is winning will win in the case of perpetual checks, even if there is no good continuation for the winning player(ie the player with more points, even though points are not actually part of the game or the rules, but an often inaccurate learning tool for quick evaluation).
Yes we have all been in that position. And I agree that it is a desperate man's tactic. I have been on both sides of the coin and when I have the upper hand and my opponent uses it. it frustrates me. So I know how it feels when you are on the receiving end of it. However, I have recently used this move once or twice. But NOT out of desperation,as a tactic. Usually to drive a opponent in a certain direction. I dont use it to end the game.
Imagine they had the Internet when the en passant rule was introduced, what a stink.
Be glad with what you have and keep on playing.
I have waited for someone to use the en passant moce on me. I played chess so long ago that I dont know how much the rules changed or stayed the same.
StephBergh wrote: Yes we have all been in that position. And I agree that it is a desperate man's tactic. I have been on both sides of the coin and when I have the upper hand and my opponent uses it. it frustrates me. So I know how it feels when you are on the receiving end of it. However, I have recently used this move once or twice. But NOT out of desperation,as a tactic. Usually to drive a opponent in a certain direction. I dont use it to end the game.
So, when it's used against you, it's desperation. When you use it, it's a tactic. Cute. There is no way to use it out of desperation. If the position allows it, and you're losing, then it's your best move. How is playing your best move tantamount to desperation?
silentfilmstar13 wrote: StephBergh wrote: Yes we have all been in that position. And I agree that it is a desperate man's tactic. I have been on both sides of the coin and when I have the upper hand and my opponent uses it. it frustrates me. So I know how it feels when you are on the receiving end of it. However, I have recently used this move once or twice. But NOT out of desperation,as a tactic. Usually to drive a opponent in a certain direction. I dont use it to end the game.
So, when it's used against you, it's desperation. When you use it, it's a tactic. Cute. There is no way to use it out of desperation. If the position allows it, and you're losing, then it's your best move. How is playing your best move tantamount to desperation?
I guess it depends on the situation. Certainly there were times when you were in a situation when you thought to yourself its dishonourable?? Like I said, I dont use it to end the game,just to force my opponent into another trap. If the situation allows for it naturally. Its great to talk about these things with people who understands the different situations and not just to family and friends who have no clue what the moves entails. Thank you everyone.
I have never considered perpetual check dishonorable. As a matter of fact, forcing stalemate or threefold repetition are my favorite tactics, as they're more subtle nuances of the game. I use it to end the game when it's my best move to do so, and were my opponent to mention that he should have won, I'd think less of him. Any position in which the best move on the board is to initiate threefold repetition is a position in which no player has the advantage.
true... if a forced perpetual is on the board.. than it is in no way a won position, and it is in no way a "cheapie" to avoid being mated.
I think it was LikesForests who said very aptly... the point of the game is not to get a material advantage.. or even a positional advantage, but to checkmate your opponent. If you can't achieve checkmate, than you do not win the game. There is nothing cheap or dishonorable in forcing a 3 move repetition... just like there isn't anything cheap or dishonorable in accepting a draw offer, whether the position is objectively a draw or not. It's simply part of the game, and the game would not be nearly as complete without it.
I don't understand where there is a question. The ideas of a losing position and one where a three-fold repetition is available are mutually exclusive. It's like asking how you feel about a flashlight being on in a pitch black room. The flashlight is on so it is not pitch black! It seems more a question that has been posed many times about the lack of manners in continuing a calculatable lost position. If your game is won..... win it. nuf said
Marshall, you miss a very important point, actually the single most important point about chess:
The objective of the game is to mate the opponent's king, nothing else!
Having more material certainly helps, but the material balance is only one factor among many to evaluate a given position, and there have been plenty of cases where it was not a decisive factor. Many of these games are considered brilliancies of chess history because the winning side pulled off a stunning sacrificial attack.
Furthermore I am surprised at your disdain for tactics. When thinking about it it is hard to come up with an exact definition what they are, but I think we all agree that tactical play involves forcing variations and the correct calculation of these. What you call cheap tactics are presumably situations in which one player sets up a not very well disguised or not very imaginative trap which will snap shut the moment you carelessly walk into it. Now if this happens to you, and if the trap was so "cheap", I absolutely fail to see where you can claim any superiority!
In an earlier post you mention two situations where you think the stronger side should be awarded the win:
1. One side has a ridiculously large material advantage against the bare enemy king, but the king is stalemated. Well, when playing the superior side of this game, there's not much you have to worry about, as practically every move should win eventually. The only thing which needs your attention is not to stalemate the oppoent. If you cannot manage even that, I'm sorry to say your play would be so pathetic you hardly deserve a full point.
2. According to you, an ending of rook and king versus bishop and king should be declared a win for the side with the rook, as the rook and king can mate a single king and the bishop and king can't. The point is that with correct play from both sides, the material imbalance of R+K vs. B+K is not enough to reach the objective of the game, which is checkmate. It is extremely difficult to actually save a draw in this ending, and I have seen even grandmasters fail in this task. So if a player manages this, it is certainly a major achievement, and he doesn't do so because of "cheap tactics", but because he has actually found the best moves saving the game by force.
Considering your point about the rook and king being able to mate the opposing king, it is absolutely ridiculous you suggest the side having bishop and king against a bare king should be awarded a win, even if the ultimate goal of the game is absolutely impossible to achieve.
Chess is an ancient game which contains elements of art, science and chivalry, and it has been refined during the centuries by its most outstanding masters. This is not to say it should never be altered in any way, but certainly stripping it of some of its best defensive resources will make it more boring not more interesting. If you want the brutal force of material to be the sole factor to decide a match, leave the major cultural achievement which is chess alone and go play some computer war simulation!