I was recently playing a game where both materially and positionally I was in clear and distinct advance. The only thing my opponent did was to repeatedly check me, with his queen, I repeatedly blocking his checking, with my rook. This was the only thing he could do without continuing the game, the continuation of which would further my favorable position, leading in all normal circumstances to a quite easy victory. The problem of mine is not with a miserable chess player like that; the problem is with the system. I was not even asked to agree to that silly draw. Can the rules for chess possibly be such that even in a clearly unfavorable game you can just make sure to repeat checking in the simplest manner and then go on decide for oneself to have a draw without even having the opinion of the other?
You may wish to reread the rules of chess regarding draws.
- If the same position occurs 3 times in a game, the game may be declared drawn by either player.
- If 50 consecutive moves occur without the capture of a piece nor the movement of a pawn the game may be declared drawn by either player.
- Draw can also occur by agreement and stalemate.
Sometimes games where a player suffering from a 'clear dissadvantage' manages to force a draw through tactical exploitation are the most impressive.
Yes, those are the rules of chess. As the side with the advantage, you have to not let yourself fall into a position where you can be perpetually checked. Otherwise, your opponent can force a draw. Since, as you say, the position will favor you as soon as the opponent stops checking, why should he stop checking you? And since there can be no progress as long as he's checking you, how can you ever win? Sounds like a draw to me.
The rule in chess is the three move repetition rule. If the same position (placement of pieces, side to move, en passant and castling possibilities) occurs 3 times in a game, the player moving the position into the third repetition may claim a draw.
thanks for instructive info here. He checked me three times, yes, and as a newbie I didn't know. But it is still silly since it opens a cowardly way to non-defeat. But I will remember that rule! :) Besides, he played repetitive during earlier phases as well, just as annoying. And I mean, if you cannot check a guy you clearly need to make use of more pieces. He did this draw on purpose, and I find that kind of play just miserable, without honor. I asked him to start play for real, and he gave no answer, just forced his draw.
He checked me three times. it opens a cowardly way to non-defeat.
I think a lot of players get the idea of the game wrong. The first rule is to avoid defeat. You only win if your opponent makes mistakes. There is nothing cowardly about forcing a draw. If you dont want him to do this, don't let him.
Iam otan the opponent of rubenshein.
i want to thank's brauer,mxdplay,sunshiny.becuase you are honest men and
i played honest game with rubenshein and you can't say it was a miserable
I challenge you one more time.rubenshein.
RubenShein, I checked the moves in the game you are speaking about here ...
Its your fault for not knowing the rules. Otan played skillfully by getting a draw out of that position. He was probably betting you didn't know the rules and sure enough you didn't. You played poorly by letting him get a draw. When you saw what he was trying to do, you could have moved your king out of check instead of blocking with the Rook thus not repeating the position. That is how you learn by making mistakes, bet you won't make that mistake again.
I thank all these comments, and I have really learned some lessons. So the basic thing is obtained thanks to you guys.
[In parenthesis: Something is nagging however, viz. that when you play you really don't want to take a lousy advantage of the fact that your opponent doesn't yet know all the basic rules (why the opponent asked, in the first place). It is not cheating, no, of course not, it is perfectly "legal," but it is dirty, without honor, and certainly not fair play. I am strongly convinced there are many players here at chess.com that would in fact enlighten his opponent about relevant rules in comparable situations. I asked: "back and forth is of same measure, not?" (meaning that to my knowledge developing other pieces would be the normal course of the play.)]
Therefore, mode 906, it is completely wrong to talk about 'skill.' Try to figure out comparable situations of competition, where one part knows the full rules, the other not, etc.. And if you had seen the game you would have seen that I could have easily avoided the repetition-lure of my opponent; for him this was very easy, especially when you consider that during the conversation he sat with knowledge that I didn't have a clue about what was going on.
rubenshein, I don't know exactly what you typed to your opponent, but if I read this from my opponent during the game: "back and forth is of same measure, not?" I wouldn't have the first clue what you were trying to say. I would probably think that you were saying you didn't have any better option than to accept the repetition.
Also, shouldn't you be required to have some common sense? If you keep repeating the same position, you'll never win. Yet you repeated the same position 3 times. Even if you don't know the 3 move repetition rule, you can see that this isn't a winning effort.
You are right. During a chess game the conversation is somewhat short naturally. And what you say depends heavily on the context of pieces being moved and so on. You didn't see the context. Had you in fact seen the game I think you would not have said what you have done here: the game clearly suggested alternatives. Earlier on in the game, my opponent was very repetitive as well. Only chance had it that the game continued. :)
As for the common sense... To be honest with you. When my opponent played like that I though he was f*cking up the game. And, consequently, that back and forth was no way out. And that: let us please continue. But he was silent as the grave... :)
As for your common sense, Loomis: your statement ["Even if you don't know the 3 move repetition rule, you can see that this isn't a winning effort."] is simply contrafactual, since my opponent knew, in fact, the rule, but he still saw, in fact, that it was a winning effort. :)
For those interested I just refer to the game itself, see the link provided by mode906 above.
I find you comparison somewhat odd. And I have never talked about 'obligations'! :) Why would I? Be that as it may.
I thank you all for sharing knowledge and ideas, even attitudes! :)
There is a crucial difference, in any system, between what is legal and what is legitimate.
This is a competition with strong, clearly defined rules.
As an example, I am annoyed that when I have a clear winning advantage and my opponent does not resign, but I never say anything as they are not breaking any rules.
If you did not know a rule, I am hope it does not offend, but that is your fault.
If he won with en passantwould you complain if you had not heard of it?