If they are playing for the draw, they are likely playing passively, and waiting for a chance to PC. You can probably take advantage of it by pressuring your opponent and not giving him any chances. If they want to play for a draw, that's their choice, you can't do anything to stop them. Maybe one day when you're paired against Carlsen you'll try to PC him too. :D
perpetual check
Sort:
Problem being I would have to cover my king from move one just in case the opponent is setting out for a draw from the get-go. Personally, I would never play anyone purely for the sake of scoring a draw early game.
Mar 23, 2015
0
#4
It is a valid strategy to aim for a draw from the start of a game. More usually in such cases the aim is to play solidly and try to avoid defeat.
Aiming for perpetual check specifically from the start is a stupid strategy though given that it is usually not possible to force if your opponent just castles and plays normally.
Disallowing perpetual check is part of chess strategy though. It should always be a consideration when it is in the position and you are trying to win. King safety is a key aspect of chess. That doesn't just involve not getting mated.
Of course perpetual check is a valid technique. If you are frustrated, you can only be frustrated with yourself for allowing it.
Mar 23, 2015
0
#6
finalDAT wrote:
finalDAT wrote: If a player resorts to perpetual check 20 moves in, with both players equal in material with neither having any decisive advantage, is this reasonable play?
Its legal. But I would only do perpetual check if that is the only way I could avoid losing.
If a player resorts to perpetual check 20 moves in, with both players equal in material with neither having any decisive advantage, is this reasonable play?
I had just beat the player in question three times in a row, and his only intention from the outset seemed to be to force such a draw in the name of one-upmanship. He was offended when I didn't like it, and referenced Magnus Carlsen resorting to perpetual check 15 moves in. I thought PC was all about avoiding a likely defeat, not drawing purely for the sake of it.
When you play someone you assume they intend to play to win. When they challenge you with the main intention being that of pulling off an early draw, that's coming to me under false pretences.
Mar 23, 2015
0
#7
Perpetual check is PART of the rules of the game of chess.
You don't like it, don't play chess.
It's silly to rant in the forums against BASIC RULES of the game.
Just because in some specific instance you don't like how it worked out against you, is not reason to expect the rules to be changed so that it'll work out in your favor.
He will change his position the first time perpetual check saves a critical game for him ... 
Thanks for the replies. As a relative novice some habits of players do rankle a bit. Personally I would never set out in a game with the sole intention of focrcing a draw asap, but in future I'll be wary of it.
For those who dislike PC and stalemate, XiangQi is the answer.
Mar 23, 2015
0
#11
[COMMENT DELETED]
I deleted the note because the game is still going on. No suggestions can be made at this time.
As far as I am concerned you should not have posted anything about the game until it was over.
Draw! ! !
DENVER
[COMMENT DELETED]
Warlov wrote:
It's hard to imagine a game 20 moves in where a king is susceptible to perpetual check. R.W.
1.c4 Nc6
2.d4 d5
3.cxd5 Qxd5
4.Nf3 Bg4
5.Nc3 Qd7
6.e3 O-O-O
7.Be2 Nf6
8.Qb3 Be6
9.Qa4 Nd5
10.O-O Bg4
11.Nxd5 Qxd5
12.h3 Bh5
13.Bc4 Qf5
14.Nd2 Kb8
15.g4 Bxg4
16.hxg4 Qxg4+
17.Kh1 Qh3+
18.Kg1 Qg4+
19.Kh1 Qh3+
20.Kg1 Qg4+
ps - I don't necessarily expect anyone to check that, but it's there for the record. I'll concede to being sloppy, I won't be so cavalier in future.
No use moaning about it. You didn't see it coming and you're going to drop a half point and some rating to a weaker player (assuming the game's rated). Bad form talking about the game while it's ongoing, but the draw's there for the taking if Black wants it and it's because you didn't take the necessary steps to avoid it.
signed
~bearded prig
Yes it's reasonable and it's your fault, not your opponent's, for allowing it. Pay more heed to the safety of your king.
Mar 23, 2015
0
#16
finalDAT wrote:
If a player resorts to perpetual check 20 moves in, with both players equal in material with neither having any decisive advantage, is this reasonable play?
I had just beat the player in question three times in a row ...
I think it depends. Since you won all the other games, I can see them wanting something other than a loss. The thing is, unless you were in some known theory where the triple-repetition is forced (or somehow 50-moves can be made without captures or pawn moves with checking), then you had to have also allowed the position to get to that point.
That said, I played in a tournament recently where my opponent was rated around 300 points higher than I was. I was playing to win but I ended up aiming for a position where a triple-repetition could potentially occur. My opponent made a small mistake which allowed me to capture a pawn with a knight and if the knight was captured in return, I was able to force the repetition. Rather than be down the pawn my opponent took the knight and you better belive I took the repetition.
If a player resorts to perpetual check 20 moves in, with both players equal in material with neither having any decisive advantage, is this reasonable play?
I had just beat the player in question three times in a row, and his only intention from the outset seemed to be to force such a draw in the name of one-upmanship. He was offended when I didn't like it, and referenced Magnus Carlsen resorting to perpetual check 15 moves in. I thought PC was all about avoiding a likely defeat, not drawing purely for the sake of it.
When you play someone you assume they intend to play to win. When they challenge you with the main intention being that of pulling off an early draw, that's coming to me under false pretences.