I played chess the other day. My opponent got his pawn to the other side of the board so I gave him a queen. But no!... he refused, he put a knight on that square instead, which immediately checkmated me. What an unfair idiot!!!~!!!1!!
What's worse, if he had just promoted to queen, I could have checked him perpetually for a draw. That would've been the fair result.
This is of course a legitimate tactic.
Seems like a real cheesy thing to do. You could have all your pieces while your opponent only has his queen left and still theoretically end up in a draw.
IMO if a player checks his opponent more than 5 times with the same piece in a row, he should automatically lose.
I don't know how that justifies a draw when it's CLEARLY not.
This is either a fishing trip or you have intellectual limitations. Fortunately, if you have intellectual limitations, your self-esteem is strong enough that it does not bother you in the least to display these limitations.
Seems like a real cheesy thing to do. You could have all your pieces while your opponent only has his queen left and still theoretically end up in a draw.
IMO if a player checks his opponent more than 5 times with the same piece in a row, he should automatically lose.
I don't know how that justifies a draw when it's CLEARLY not.
Mr. RUSBorris, you seriously have some social interaction problem as well. When people try to explain you about perpetual check, instead of trying to help yourself by understanding, you put your own justification without thinking about anything else.
So I've already encountered one of these a-holes. What happens is that at end game they find it amusing to check you with their queen, and you have no defenses so you move out of the way, and they then check you again. You move back. They check you... etc etc and they do this forever. They know they can't check mate you and they are losing, but they keep doing this to annoy you.
Are there some rules against this? e.g if they do this enough they auto-lose or something?
That's why people castle. Then the opponent will not check.
There is also a 50 move rule about this. If either side doesn't move a pawn in 50 moves the game is drawn.
While we're on the topic of learning the rules:
The 50 move rule is "no pawn move or capture", and the draw must be claimed by either player.
Of course, the real point of this thread is not that you are an idiot if you don't know the rules of chess - No beginner will, or should memorize the FIDE laws. You are an idiot if, rather than checking the rulebooks or asking polite questions, you make threads like this. It's not the lack of knowledge that makes you an idiot, but this infuriating combination of arrogance and ignorance that causes you to post insults and cheating accusations rather than stop and think for a second.
Play Chinese Chess, if you perpetually check the opponent's King, you lose. Lol.
I played chess the other day. My opponent got his pawn to the other side of the board so I gave him a queen. But no!... he refused, he put a knight on that square instead, which immediately checkmated me. What an unfair idiot!!!~!!!1!!
What's worse, if he had just promoted to queen, I could have checked him perpetually for a draw. That would've been the fair result.
Oh how DARE he! LOL
If your opponent can keep checking you it means one thing. You did a poor job of protecting your king. Now you want to complain because you could win if you had only protected your king better. If you can't stop him from checking you then offer a draw and move on.
If your opponent can keep checking you it means one thing. You did a poor job of protecting your king...
Not really. Oftentimes a perpetual check comes in the wake of a seemingly powerful (sometimes speculative) attack which just fails. Given one more move the attack could be brought to mate, but the attacker lacks that tempo due to the perpetual check defense.
In chess, as in life, it almost always a mistake to make broad sweeping statements of a judgmental nature. There are many, many ways that a perpetual check can come to be, many of them having nothing to do "poor" play.
You can capture most material and still not able to win the game due to some oversight, forcing a 3 repetition draw is a legit tactic
here's 1 of my game where I forced a repetition draw
Ok I'm going to be picky here and call you out because basically you and me and everyone else are calling out rusBor for being ignorant and obnoxious. So, if you're going to join the party you should know what you're talking about.
What you posted is NOT A FORCED PERPETUAL CHECK.
You can capture most material and still not able to win the game due to some oversight, forcing a 3 repetition draw is a legit tactic
here's 1 of my game where I forced a repetition draw
Ok I'm going to be picky here and call you out because basically you and me and everyone else are calling out rusBor for being ignorant and obnoxious. So, if you're going to join the party you should know what you're talking about.
What you posted is NOT A FORCED PERPETUAL CHECK.
seems to be something wrong with the position editor. My post has failed 2x now.
Anyway, since you can't see it in the diagram, your problem is that you don't have a perpetual check because black has at least 3 different moves that don't allow you to continue checking, 2 of them leading to winning lines, I believe, for Black.
If your opponent can keep checking you it means one thing. You did a poor job of protecting your king...
Not really. Oftentimes a perpetual check comes in the wake of a seemingly powerful (sometimes speculative) attack which just fails. Given one more move the attack could be brought to mate, but the attacker lacks that tempo due to the perpetual check defense.
In chess, as in life, it almost always a mistake to make broad sweeping statements of a judgmental nature. There are many, many ways that a perpetual check can come to be, many of them having nothing to do "poor" play.
A poor choice of words on my part. If you put everything into a speculative attack without thought to protecting your king then you may be subject to perpetual check. A player is perfectly within the rules of the game to give perpetual check if possible.
I had an experience of repeated checking not long ago, but for some reason, my opponent was allowed to do it more than three times - a lot more than three times!
I found it very humorous when, after around move number fifty six, he seriously asked me, "hey, you want to stop that?"
Seems like a real cheesy thing to do. You could have all your pieces while your opponent only has his queen left and still theoretically end up in a draw.
IMO if a player checks his opponent more than 5 times with the same piece in a row, he should automatically lose.
I don't know how that justifies a draw when it's CLEARLY not.
really why should your opponent lose for attacking your king consistantly, it is considered a draw cause if your and idiot enough to leave your king open to attack that gives full rights to your idiot opponent to attack it. and if that attack is repeated, the position that is it is a draw
Exactly. Perpetual check is a perfectly legitimate draw. Anyone who has a strong advantage and lets himself be maneuvered into perpetual check doesn't deserve the win-- a draw is justified.
I had an experience of repeated checking not long ago, but for some reason, my opponent was allowed to do it more than three times - a lot more than three times!
If it was the same position repeating, the reason he was "allowed" to do it more than three times was because you didn't claim the draw.
Perpetual check is a vital drawing tactic that should be in every serious player's repetoire
Exactly so. Btw, I don't think jesus would approve of christian solidiers.
Perpetual check is a vital drawing tactic that should be in every serious player's repetoire
Ditto. When launching an attack, you should take all dynamics into consideration, including the safety of your own king, despite you being the one attacking. Perpetual check is one of the reasons why this is vital.
LOL! Another beginner complaining about being swindled!
It never ends..