Idiots and checks - Chess Forums - Page 6

RUSBoris · 2011-02-26T16:29:31-08:00

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

TheGrobe

Mar 1, 2011

0

#101

So that I'm clear -- this perpetual check that you speak of: I can cash it over and over again?

Pronk01

Mar 1, 2011

0

#102

Estragon wrote:

It should be noted there is no such thing as a "draw by perpetual check" under the rules, either the FIDE Laws of Chess or any federation's national tournament rules.

A draw may be forced by stalemate, threefold repetition of position, the 50-move rule, or by agreement where permitted. There is no other way.

"Perpetual check" is a real tactic, of course, and will by force lead to one of the other draws, usually threefold repetition. Many players will recognize this and just agree to the draw once a perpetual has been demonstrated. But it is no different from the tactic of "perpetual attack" against another piece, such as the Queen, under the rules.

Agreed

Conquistador

Mar 1, 2011

0

#103

So wait, is this a perpetual?

Because you can't beat this.

Gil-Gandel

Mar 1, 2011

0

#104

Tragasus wrote:

God, can someone tell me how to delete this tiresome thread...la..de...lol

No, no I can't. Oh, if only there was some way you didn't have to read it...

Dragec

Mar 2, 2011

0

#105

Elroch wrote:

..

There is no problem with the position Dragec gave. If one of the players refuses to agree a draw, the other one simply claims one later according to the 50 move rule or the threefold repetition rule.

Elroch, one could time out while trying to do the 50 moves, of course if other would try to win on time. And his opponent would be awarded a win, even though he can not checkmate by any series of legal moves.

This was just an example that software probably cannot recognize all draw positions, but if it guess right 99% of the positions, that fine by me.

maapalaa

Mar 2, 2011

0

#106

Dragec wrote:

Elroch wrote:

..

There is no problem with the position Dragec gave. If one of the players refuses to agree a draw, the other one simply claims one later according to the 50 move rule or the threefold repetition rule.

Elroch, one could time out while trying to do the 50 moves, of course if other would try to win on time. And his opponent would be awarded a win, even though he can not checkmate by any series of legal moves.

This was just an example that software probably cannot recognize all draw positions, but if it guess right 99% of the positions, that fine by me.

Not only this. The touch move is also different in online games. For example, if my opponent gives me a check and without noticing it I try to make a illegal move with one of my pieces, the software doesn't allow me to move. But it should also restrict me to make a legal move with that piece (maybe putting between my king and my attacked enemy's piece or capture my opponents piece with the "touched" piece).

polydiatonic

Mar 2, 2011

0

#107

Conquistador wrote:

So wait, is this a perpetual?

Because you can't beat this.

It's certainly not a perpetual, although it might be unbeatable. Now if this was available at a all you can eat buffet you might be on to something because you could repeat it over and over again :)

panderson2

Mar 2, 2011

0

#108

Dragec wrote:

chess.com can not practically implement all the laws of chess (see diagram below, software probably can not see this is a draw), but they're doing good job in trying to implement most of it.

For position like that time increment is a must I suppose

kkjimbo

Mar 2, 2011

0

#109

Not really on topic but I always liked Ficher's comment 'monkey see check, monkey gives check' For the record as most people have said if you have allowed yourself to get in a position where you are clearly winning but your opponent can get a draw by perpetual then you only have yourself to blame.

polydiatonic

Mar 2, 2011

0

#110

kkjimbo wrote:

Not really on topic but I always liked Ficher's comment 'monkey see check, monkey gives check' For the record as most people have said if you have allowed yourself to get in a position where you are clearly winning but your opponent can get a draw by perpetual then you only have yourself to blame.

Silly comment. Really. Shows a lack of depth of understanding of the game. I can recall an amazing Fischer vs. Tal game that settled into a perpetual check after an amazing see-saw battle. If you're intested I'll post the score, I'm sure I can find it. Two players playing at an amazingly high level with a just outcome.

meatonthetable

Mar 2, 2011

0

#111

Move the little horsey thing it can jump!! yep you are definitley new to the chess game my friend..try playing in Washington Square park NY...real fights break out all the time..lol

polydiatonic

Mar 2, 2011

0

#112

meatonthetable wrote:

Move the little horsey thing it can jump!! yep you are definitley new to the chess game my friend..try playing in Washington Square park NY...real fights break out all the time..lol

I've played at Washington Square Park lots of times over the years. I grew around there. I saw lots and lots of arguments but I never EVER saw a fight. I'm not saying there never were any, it's not like I slept on a park bench there, but you're making it sound like it was common place and it certainly was/is not. So what is the point you're trying to make here with your hyperbole?

I should make one distinction...I did occasionally see some fights there but it always seemed to be some minor dope deal gone wrong; not involving chess players per se.

Elroch

Mar 4, 2011

0

#113

echecs06 wrote:

kkjimbo wrote:

Not really on topic but I always liked Ficher's comment 'monkey see check, monkey gives check'

Actually, it was "patzer sees check, patzer gives check". More literal, with no unjustifiable insinuations about other simians.

meatonthetable

Mar 6, 2011

0

#114

The point is my friend should not be irritated, distracted, pissed off or anything when your opponent makes the perpetual checks..that is part of the chess game...[but] you should always look before you move to see if your opponent has a perpetual check and avoid them if your winning and if your losing then you should be the one looking for perpetual check! and your right i should have clarified fights and arguments..hyperbole? a fight means an argument not physical violence..sorry to miscontrude the statement .

mateologist

Mar 6, 2011

0

#115

redbirdpat wrote:

This thread is dumb. No it's not. This thread is dumb. No it's not. This thread is dumb. Not it's not.

Damn! A draw!

LOL GREAT STUFF !! To the OP i refer you to the "novice" section on this site which explains some of the questions beginners often rant about and bring to the main forum . They basically get the same treatment, do your homework learn the rules of this complex game and then i am sure everyone will be more than happy to answer some of your questions .

kkjimbo

Mar 8, 2011

0

#116

Elroch wrote:

echecs06 wrote:

kkjimbo wrote:

Not really on topic but I always liked Ficher's comment 'monkey see check, monkey gives check'

Actually, it was "patzer sees check, patzer gives check". More literal, with no unjustifiable insinuations about other simians.

In my copy of My 60 Memorable Games it was Monkey, different editor maybe?!

Cry_Wolf

Mar 8, 2011

0

#117

RUSBoris wrote:

IMO if a player checks his opponent more than 5 times with the same piece in a row, he should automatically lose.

Ok, I'll notify the president of chess immediately

kkjimbo

Mar 8, 2011

0

#118

polydiatonic wrote:

kkjimbo wrote:

Not really on topic but I always liked Ficher's comment 'monkey see check, monkey gives check' For the record as most people have said if you have allowed yourself to get in a position where you are clearly winning but your opponent can get a draw by perpetual then you only have yourself to blame.

Silly comment. Really. Shows a lack of depth of understanding of the game. I can recall an amazing Fischer vs. Tal game that settled into a perpetual check after an amazing see-saw battle. If you're intested I'll post the score, I'm sure I can find it. Two players playing at an amazingly high level with a just outcome.

Sorry I fail to see your point. All I did was quote Fischer (whilst making it clear it was a little off topic) and then giving my opinion that the guy who started this discussion should not blame his opponent for saving a losing position by giving perpetual. How is this a silly comment? and what right does it give you to say I lack a depth of understanding about chess. Your right I do and I know it, but I don't think my comments gave you cause to make this observation. Would love to see the Tal v Fischer game. In the meantime I demand satisfaction Custard Pies at dawn?

polydiatonic

Mar 8, 2011

0

#119

kkjimbo wrote:

polydiatonic wrote:

kkjimbo wrote:

Not really on topic but I always liked Ficher's comment 'monkey see check, monkey gives check' For the record as most people have said if you have allowed yourself to get in a position where you are clearly winning but your opponent can get a draw by perpetual then you only have yourself to blame.

Silly comment. Really. Shows a lack of depth of understanding of the game. I can recall an amazing Fischer vs. Tal game that settled into a perpetual check after an amazing see-saw battle. If you're intested I'll post the score, I'm sure I can find it. Two players playing at an amazingly high level with a just outcome.

Sorry I fail to see your point. All I did was quote Fischer (whilst making it clear it was a little off topic) and then giving my opinion that the guy who started this discussion should not blame his opponent for saving a losing position by giving perpetual. How is this a silly comment? and what right does it give you to say I lack a depth of understanding about chess. Your right I do and I know it, but I don't think my comments gave you cause to make this observation. Would love to see the Tal v Fischer game. In the meantime I demand satisfaction Custard Pies at dawn?

Here are 3 games that end perpetual checks or are drawn because of the coming perpetual check between Fischer and Tal...sorry if I misunderstood your point.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044078

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044572

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008399

Hendrik77

Mar 8, 2011

0

#120

RUSBoris wrote:

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.

Yes, well. That`s the frustrating side of chess. You can also find yourself in a draw by a stalemate, there you also have almost all the pieces and your opponent has only a King and maibe a pawn or two, and for a moment you think that it`s CLEARLY not a draw. But s..t happens;)) Rules are rules.