Is perpetual check lame?

Um arguing about the rules again. I believe that in xiangqi stalemate counts as mate. If I played xiangqi then I would play by those rules, and wouldn't expect people to change them just because of me.

The point should be that a Chess game is drawn if the same position occurs 3 times.  This can but does not have to involve check.  The problem is that this chess program does not enforce the rule.

i think people are missing the point of the perpetual check rule. without the rule im sure i would have played many games moving my king forward and back for an hour because of repeted moves. nice to have a rule that lets you stop the game:)

If you read the rule a little more closely you'll see why:  It's not up to the program to enforce the rule.  The draw must be claimed by one of the two players otherwise play can and will continue.

I agree, if you fail to notice this possibility and fall victim to this draw even when ahead in material/position/etc, you have only yourself to blame.

Fair enough. How does the program allow you to do that? Claim the daraw I mean.

You simply click on the draw button once the conditions to claim it have been met and instead of offering a draw you will automatically claim it without the need for your opponent's consent.

What TheGrobe said, but I would like to add that there is no "perpetual check" rule as far as I know. If your opponent won't accept the draw for whatever reason (e.g. time), you will have to continue checking until there has been threefold repetition or the fifty-move rule applies before you can claim a draw.

I'm not suggesting that the rules need changing, just that there is subjectivity in rule making. Granted, perpetual check is not checkmate. But you could argue that the player giving check has the upper hand, and that in order to limit draws this player would be considered the winner. The player giving check does have the option of not doing so. This is apparently what was done in Go, so the idea is not without percident in world games.

I don't think the rule needs changing.  I'd hate to see perpetual check become a winning resource for the player who already has the upper hand.  I think that would really be a unintended and detrimental consequence of making this change.  The win must be proven, and perpetual check in it's current form ensures this in both scenarios.

The person in Go is not considered the winner. Infinite moves are just not allowed. The same holds true for Shogi.

Perpetual is a great tactic

 I was misinformed. I'm ready for my punishment.

Perpetual check is not lame.  Resigning is not lame.  But disconnecting from Live Chess when you're in a losing position is lame, lame, lame.

I didn't even realise that Go had a king, who do you check in go?

There is no check in Go. But there is a rule in Go (the ko rule IIRC) that you cannot make a move that puts the board into a position identical to what it was before your opponent's last move. Therefore you can never have threefold repetition of the position, which as the Grobe pointed out, is the actual rule in Chess.

Depends. it is lame if you are winning the game and your opponent perpatualy checks you so the game ends in a draw instead of a win for you. it is not lame when you are losing the game but you found a way to perpatual check your opponent in to a drawn game so you don't lose the game.

Go and Xiangqi are different games. I could learn Xiangqi if i had to, even played it a couple of times. (Although I played more pool when I was in China, lol.)

This. Kind of like back rank mates at the 1000 level.

I just finished this game: I was in big trouble, and swindled a draw. And no, I don't feel bad about it