Do you think prepetual check/three fold repetition is honorable?

 it, s apart of the rule.s  of chess .

like it or lump it , 

the rule,s of game  is the rule,s of the game.

 Like I said,in the endgame, or even then middle game, where there is a "zugzwang" position, then it's definitely a draw. The main argument was whether you think that it's acceptable when it's the middle game, and there are still other moves possible, but one party chooses the easy way out and forces a draw by either 3-fold repitition, or perpetual check, because they know they are not good enough to win. I just think it's cheapens the very essense of chess, and demotes the game to a simple end result of win/lose/draw. Taking the artistry and complexity out of it.  To me it just seems childish, and I've never been comfortable using it myself.

Also, I think it's pretty funny to see how the people on here who support it the most are also the ones who engage in personal attacks and/or taunting instead of being objective and staying on topic. Could there be a connection between their level of maturity and their unconditional support for cheap draws?

In any case, not that I need to justify myself here to anyone, but I'm not a beginner, and this is not me "whining" about someone doing that to me in a recent game and me going straight on here expressing my frustrations. Like I said from the start, I don't feel confortable using it myself, and this is about the principle, and each individuals view of what chess is all about.

As many people on here who support the rules as they are have stated, there are many exceptions, and in a lot of cases using it as a last resort is most definitely justifiable. I'm trying to be objective here, and not polarized in one direction or another, so I gladly acknowledge that these are very valid points. The main point was if you think it's ok to take the cheap way out while in the middle of the game with many options still left on the board, or if you think it's dishonorable; and if you think that the rule should be changed to not apply in those particular situations. Not whether or not you should use it or not in tournaments/high stake games when it's allowed.

You're 'objective' evaluation still insists on calling it the cheap way out, or the easy way out.  There is nothing cheap about playing one's best move.  If it is a player's best move, no matter the stage of the game, I don't understand how it can be considered cheap.  If it's not the players best move, then he is certainly helping the opponent rather than himself by doing so.

" I don't feel confortable using it myself, and this is about the principle, and each individuals view of what chess is all about."

If I were to say the exact same thing about checkmate, you would think it stupid, would you not?  Even if it were my view of what chess is all about. 

I don't use checkmate, myself.  I think it cheapens the game.  Some players take the easy way out by initiating checkmate in the middlegame.  In the endgame is one thing, but to checkmate when there are so many other moves is cheap.  If you want the game to be over so badly, why play in the first place?

The above is an example of a stupid idea that should be criticized.  So is this topic. 

someone_british: "The main point was if you think it's ok to take the cheap way out while in the middle of the game with many options still left on the board"

 No, it wasn't, you're changing your story. In the first post you wrote that the position is desperately losing and the only chance to draw is by repetition and that you would avoid it even if meant you would lose the game. This is quite different from avoiding it when there are many options still left.

In post #15 (your 4th on this thread) you first bring up the idea that it's only "dishonorable" when there is still other possibilities left in the position. But, since you seem to be sticking with this idea now, I'll answer your new question.

Should the rules allow for draw by repetition when the player initiating the repetition is losing, but not allow for it when that player has other options? My first reaction to this question is to wonder who decides the player going for initiation is losing? A tournament director? A computer program? There may exist the man power for this at elite tournaments, but not at tournaments for regular players and certainly not on a website with thousands of games per day.

Silentfilmstar made a good point that if the player initiating the draw has other better options, that player is really helping his opponent, so why should there be a rule against this? Should there be a rule against resigning in drawn or winning positions? You may be surprised, but it happens.

Bottom line, I don't think there can be a rule against this. But, I will also say that when I play with my friends in person we will often forgo a repetition to play an interesting position. These are also games where the occasional kibitzing between players occurs. Also, in the game I posted early in this thread where I went for perpetual check, my opponent avoided one perpetual and allowed a different one, but by that time I had decided I could press for the win instead of taking the draw. In my opinion, that's a choice a chess player has to make "do I take this draw or push for more." It's not a choice the rules should make for you. 

Lastly, you state "I think it's pretty funny to see how the people on here who support it the most are also the ones who engage in personal attacks and/or taunting instead of being objective and staying on topic." Please leave me out of your false generalizations in the future.

Not only is a draw by either repetition or perpetual check valid, it's intrinsic. Without that possibility, the game as we know it would be changed irrevokably. The best/worse game of my life involved a potential draw by repetition.

My opponent in this correspondence game was a particularly strong woman player. We had played three previous games which I had lost. In this, the fourth game, I was up 2 pawns in the middle game in what seemed like an equal position, giving me hope that I was finally going to win a game from her. I also felt, at the time, that I was playing my best against her best. A key to my position was controlling a diagonal which I had weakened in earning the 2 pawn advantage - a situation I felt was adequately covered. Then she moved her queen to an "impossible" square, seizing the diagonal. Her moved shocked me because it was essentially a queen sacrifice - not a mistake she was likely to make. After a considerable amount of time examining the position, I discovered her exceedingly subtle ploy. Her queen was a decoy and capturing it would require that I abandon the defense of a square that would, after a few moves, enable her to repeatedly check my king - she was offering me a draw by repetition!  Being 2 pawns up, the last thing I wanted was a draw, so I declined the sacrifice - foolishly. Declining the sacrifice conceeded the diagonal and eventually the game.  But it convinced me of the tactical and psychological power as well as the intrinsic importance of the draw, whether by repetion, perpetual or stalemate.

To be be honest with you , when you choose to play this game there are rule,s that go with chess playing which one has to abide by ,

SO LIKE IT OR LUMP IT THAT,S THE GAME 

hmm well it's clear some people dont fully understand the implications of messing with this rule, and how ridiculously complicated it would make endgames.  It would often to be necessary to calculate for example whether upon entering say an opposite bishop endgame you could make 50 stalling moves before being forced to repeat a position.  Important concepts such as opposition would now be no more, since blocking the opposing king would require repetition.  The endgame/middlegame/opening distinction is unimportant.  Usually if there is a threefold repetition before the endgame it is still the case that either player would have to make a losing move to break the cycle. 

I believe one of Adams' games from Baku had reached a queen and pawns position which simply didnt offer a win for either player even though there were obvious moves to break the cycle.  The game was a natural draw.  It would have been completely unfair and arbitrary to declare his opponent the winner simply because the position was such that Adams initiated the checks.  In fact i think Adams had had the initiative for some time, but simply didnt have enough to win, and he simply had no better than repeated checks, or he would probably have lost.  He wasnt getting a cheap draw, as he was and had been for some time, in the driving seat.  This was just what the position demanded.  

In another game from Baku a player had sacrificed a piece for a strong attack, but his opponent defended strongly and the player who sacrificed had no good continuation, and repeated moves for a draw, barely out of the opening.  So here is another case where a change in the rules would screw things up, and would actually make people less likely to play exciting attacking chess.  The player took the draw because he went for the win but found there wasnt one there, so he took the draw.  He wasnt snatching a draw from the jaws of defeat.  

Also, Someone_british, a zugzwang position would definitely not be a draw, by definition.  In zugzwang, the player with the move loses.  

 In that situation, yes it is acceptable. If the player who initiated the perpetual check had better moves which would have resulted in him winning, then by taking a draw instead he is really just helping out his opponent (as others have already pointed out). If he is losing, and by initiating a perpetual check he salvages a draw from an otherwise lost game, then you've already agreed that it is acceptable in that situation. So what exactly is your point?

Most people want to win. Most people will try to do so if possible. If the best a person can do in a situation is force a draw to avoid losing, they will do that. Can you actually give us a concrete example in which the situation you described has occurred?

And once again, if the rules allow a player to gain a draw by 3-fold repetition then it is neither "childish" nor "dishonorable" to do so - the same way that it isn't "childish" or "dishonorable" to capture en passant, to have one's knight hop over another piece, to promote a pawn to a queen, etc. It's just part of the game.

"....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."

1st:Cheap tactics require skill and courage as well.Like the theft thing.Not every man I know can dare to go steal a Rolex watch of a rich spoiled brat.What if youre caught??You will be arrested and judged and imprisoned at the speed of light.

2nd:Well..I will give an example from chess.Not from  football or battles.

So,tell me,does the guy who did not see that deserve a win??Do people who fall for those tricks deserve a win???If you are superior,you should be able to stop threefold/perpetual.If you cannot,then you are not superior enough for winning.

 "...   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.""

I totally agree.The guys over at FIDE know something,thats why the rules are like this.If you have a problem,go to FIDE and they will look thru it.Kirsan Ilyumzhinov is the one to go for this and you must make him busy and fill his e-mail box,not wasting chess.com's sources for such a discussion with a simple answer.

YES.

(i dunno how to quote,sry) 

This is pure opinion of course -

Chess is war in miniature.  Some warriors are samurai and some are guerrillas and there people that fall into various degrees in between.  If the samurai wishes to win and one of the standards for the win is to keep their honor, they will have to be on guard for the guerrilla who will use their honor against them.  If the guerrilla defeats the samurai, it is the fault of the samurai for not factoring in the dishonorable tactics his opponent might use.

Personally, I like to play as the samurai - but I may resort to the way of the guerrilla if it means toppling a far superior foe.

So I guess I would view it as dishonorable, but I wouldn't degrade the person using the tactic - rather I'd feel some satisfaction that they had to resort to something so sneaky.

 There's nothing sneaky about it.  In chess, both players get to look at the same position.  If one sees something the other does not, who's fault is that?

I was just thinking of perpetual check re: real wars and I was like.. "I can't think of an example of a perpetual war. Oh, wait..."

likesforests, it was a watershed match for me, particularly after that last game. I almost gave up chess completely as a result and did, in fact, give up correspondence chess. No, I don't have the game. I disposed of it.

Whether it's sneaky or not is debatable (I don't think it is, but the OP obviously does), but that wasn't the point of the whole post that preceded the single word you took issue with.  Some people consider it an honorable tactic, some don't.  You're not going to convince anyone by labeling it differently or calling it something else.  It's there, people will use it, people need to deal with it.

Lucky for us, instead of giving up chess, Sarah became a notable chess historian and has written all sorts of entertaining and intriguing articles. :)