Always announce checkmate (not mate)
Is it rude to announce "Check" in OTB chess?
Sort:
This wasn't about "perpetual check" being rude or not... Of course that has been dealt with countless times on here.. https://www.chess.com/forum/search?keyword=Perpetual+check and I agree with you guys on one thing... Inferior position was a better phrase... Well most people I've seen do that in a clearly sure lose position and it was quite obvious that they are just doing that to claim a draw or put you out of time which is neither fun nor those it improve their chess play on the long run.. If I am in an inferior position, I try to play outta of it, that's the beauty of chess for me.. Now I'm not saying that perpetual check doesn't come in handy, yes it does but doing that in the context above; that I consider rude.
I wouldn't consider it rude. I would, however, find it rather questionable to say it to a higher rated player. 90% + of the time, they are going to notice that they are in check. You don't have to announce it.
To say it to a lower rated player however - it should be OK, especially if it is a long range check.
Oct 5, 2016
0
#85
But I've been berated for NOT announcing check. Think about it. My opponent saw he was in check, and got angry with me for not telling him about it.
egoole wrote:
Well most people I've seen do that in a clearly sure lose position and it was quite obvious that they are just doing that to claim a draw
They are not in a "clearly sure lose position" if they are able to play for a draw.
baloma wrote:
But I've been berated for NOT announcing check. Think about it. My opponent saw he was in check, and got angry with me for not telling him about it.
Well tell your opponent he is a wombat.
Only newbies announce check or checkmate.
Lagomorph wrote:
egoole wrote:
Well most people I've seen do that in a clearly sure lose position and it was quite obvious that they are just doing that to claim a draw
They are not in a "clearly sure lose position" if they are able to play for a draw.
Thx... That's true... A draw's a draw that I know. But "playing for a draw" sounds more like a stalemate draw than a three fold repitition which sounds more like "claiming a draw"... BTW, by a "sure lose position" I mean being many points down in materials and in position that infers a lose ASSUMING both sides play well...
When I first learned the game of chess back in the mid-1960's, the rules at that time read you must announce 'check' to your opponent whenever you checked their king. (Said rules of chess often found on the 'printed how to play' sheets that accompanied new chess sets.) I suppose like descriptive notation this courtesy has gone by the wayside. (Of course, one played chess Over The Board, by correspondence (snail-mail), or Amateur Radio.)
egoole wrote:
Lagomorph wrote:
egoole wrote:
Well most people I've seen do that in a clearly sure lose position and it was quite obvious that they are just doing that to claim a draw
They are not in a "clearly sure lose position" if they are able to play for a draw.
Thx... That's true... A draw's a draw that I know. But "playing for a draw" sounds more like a stalemate draw than a three fold repitition which sounds more like "claiming a draw"... BTW, by a "sure lose position" I mean being many points down in materials and in position that infers a lose ASSUMING both sides play well...
Being many points down in material means nothing if you can't deliver a checkmate. If in inferior position a player has a resource of perpetual check while any other strategy loses then perpetual is his best line of play and this position is a forced draw (not "sure lose position"),
Thx for clearing that up for me :) .... Which is then a sure lose position? I've seen folks use that here quite often.
Oct 5, 2016
0
#92
egoole wrote:
Which is then a sure lose position? I've seen folks use that here quite often.
Sometimes material is equal, and it's a very easy win for one of the players... much easier than if you had an extra queen.
Sometimes material is not equal, but there is compensation on the board or off the board (like difference in time remaining or rating difference). Or the side with less material is completely winning.
You can't always know when the position is sure to be lost. The better you are at chess the better your judgement will be.
What's the point. There's already an auditory indication when one is checked.
ablankslate wrote:
What's the point. There's already an auditory indication when one is checked.
What ? Do you have your butler stand behind you and announce check for you in OTB play ?
AussieRookie wrote:
No, he's bringing me the food.
This guy gets it! *thumbs up
Apr 7, 2018
0
#97
nimzomalaysian wrote:
So, is it okay for a player to announce "check" when he makes a move that puts the opponent in check, or is it considered rude?
If you are just playing a friend, I guess it's okay if he doesn't mind. But in a tournament where dozens of people are playing in one room, imagine how distracting it would be to hear repeatedly "check" from all the other players.
nimzomalaysian wrote:
I once had an opponent say "Check yo king, mother#$%^&"
no, that's not considered to be rude at all...
In blitz games it’s helpful
egoole, why is a perpetual check rude? RUKMRN?
It's rude tho' not against the rules..... Kind of bad sportsmanship thingy... Yap., it is a tactics mostly used by people in a sure losing position... I mean no body would perpetually check his opponent when he has a mate in 3 or three passed pawns.... Losers just use it hoping you would either run out of time or claim a draw .... What's even more rude which I implied in my previous post is announcing check everytime you perpetually check your opponent.... 😊
Another stupid clown on chess.com
There is absolutely nothing rude about perpetual check. If you are in an inferior position, it's a mechanism that forces your opponent to guard against this if he is trying to attack your King and win.
Why on freaking earth would it be considered "rude" to check you to death. I'm not sitting at the opposite side of the board from you just so you can roll me over! Sometimes the best defense is counter-attack, and while maybe I can't mate you, I can deliver check to the end of eternity and force a draw!
People that whine and bi*ch about drawing mechanisms, like 3-fold repetition, perpetual check (a subset of 3-fold repetition), Stalemate, 50 moves, etc, are nothing more than f'ing crybabies that are either incompitent if they had a clearly won position, or maybe just thought that they had the full point in the bag and are incapable of assessing a position and realizing that the position is dynamically equal because of possibilites of the opponent delivering perpetual check, or sacrificing a piece that leads to something like Bishop of wrong color and Rook pawn versus lone King.
Chess is not a game where just because you make smart moves for the first 15 moves in the game that you should automatically win and your opponent should just sit there and do nothing and let you roll over him! Get a Grip! Get a Life!