you didn't claim a draw - ergo you didnt want a draw. What you want is what you get :)
Unsportsmanlike
Sort:
you have to claim the draw! it wont appear by itself! even if there was prepertual check and a position had occured three timesa in a row, it's like calling the judge to call the verdict if the opponent refuses your draw offer...
Oct 28, 2008
0
#24
Just 2 cents worth on a slightly different angle-- one of the main reasons I play here is the high level of sportsmanship I've experienced. Even on ICC where you pay some bucks, I've had to block all communication to avoid the ridiculous adolescent comments and response one sometimes encounters. I seem to play between 1350 and 1500. Maybe life is different in the thin air of the higher reaches.
ignorance isnt a reason to complain... this is the same argument of people who have never heard of en passante. Just because you didn't know how to take your earned draw doesn't mean your opponent is to blaim. The whole point of live chess is that time is a very important variable in the outcome of a game. Playing for time is just the same as playing for checkmate. I often purposely create complicated positions and move rapidly in the hopes that my opponent spends more time than I do moving, even if it means giving him a pawn or two unnecessarily. I am sorry you lost a game that you obviously had a draw, but you should only blame your own ignorance.
It's odd that after it was pointed out that one is responsible for both realizing that a draw can be claimed and for claiming it, that some folks still castigated the opponent for supposed childish bad behavior. If someone can claim a draw but does not do so, what is the opponent supposed to do, point it out?
"I say, old boy, would you mind terribly claiming a draw here? You've got me in perpetual, and I just don't need the full point."
I think the point is that there's no provision to claim the draw when you've obtained perpetual check short of forcing a three-fold repetition. Granted that occurred in this case and the original poster didn't capitalize on his ability to claim a draw, but the problem is that this gap is ripe to be gamed in this manner which is exactly what the original poster's opponent tried to do.
It's not stated explicitly in the original post, but I can't imagine that draw offers weren't made after the perpetual check position was established but before the three-fold repetition was complete. Assuming this was in fact the case if the functionality were in place to recognize a perpetual check and change the the draw button's function appropriately, the draw would in fact have been claimed by the original poster. Because this functionality doesn't exist, one must rely on the honour system for one's opponent to accept the a draw offer in a perpetual check position. This opponent presumably did not, hence the continued castigation.
Oct 29, 2008
0
#28
There isn't a specific rules in chess about perpetual check. The only way that it can lead to a draw is by threefold repetition, which would have been claimed if either player had tried to offer a draw (the button doesn't change to claim draw in live chess, although I believe it does in turn-based correspondance chess).
Apparently, nobody actually tried to offer a draw after the threefold repetition. The only automatically claimed draws are stalemate and insufficient material, if I'm not mistaken.
I stand corrected -- there is no longer an explicit rule to address perpetual check (although there once was) as the claimed draw is deferred to the threefold repetition or the 50 move rules which will eventually arise in a perpetual check situation. That being said, convention is that a draw is generally agreed to before having to resort to a claimed draw and I still feel it was poor form and unsportsmanlike to play the clock in this situation.
TheGrobe wrote:
I stand corrected -- there is no longer an explicit rule to address perpetual check (although there once was) as the claimed draw is deferred to the threefold repetition or the 50 move rules which will eventually arise in a perpetual check situation. That being said, convention is that a draw is generally agreed to before having to resort to a claimed draw and I still feel it was poor form and unsportsmanlike to play the clock in this situation.
Okay. Are you going to try to tell us that in every situation in which your opponent makes a mistake, you don't take advantage of it? If your opponent blunders, do you decline to take the hanging piece, or give one back in return? If your opponent has the opportunity to claim a draw by three fold repetition, but doesn't, is it really your job to help him?
I think you are confusing good sportsmanship with having no interest in winning the game.
The only example of poor sportsmanship that I see here is the decision to post this game, with the player's name, and publicly castigate him, when in fact it seems that the one who lost simply was unaware of the proper procedure to claim the draw.
If anyone really feels like chess is a charity rather than a competitive game, let's play a few dozen games and you can help me by agreeing to a draw on move 5. My rating can use the boost.
Oct 30, 2008
0
#31
TheGrobe wrote:
I stand corrected -- there is no longer an explicit rule to address perpetual check (although there once was) as the claimed draw is deferred to the threefold repetition or the 50 move rules which will eventually arise in a perpetual check situation. That being said, convention is that a draw is generally agreed to before having to resort to a claimed draw and I still feel it was poor form and unsportsmanlike to play the clock in this situation.
Since repetition wasn't claimed, neither side hit the 'offer draw' button after the repetition.
You'd think that claiming the draw would be the burden of the person delivering perpetual check, actually. 
Oct 30, 2008
0
#32
TheGrobe wrote:
I stand corrected -- there is no longer an explicit rule to address perpetual check (although there once was)
There has never been an explicit rule for perpetual.
Duffer1965 wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
I stand corrected -- there is no longer an explicit rule to address perpetual check (although there once was) as the claimed draw is deferred to the threefold repetition or the 50 move rules which will eventually arise in a perpetual check situation. That being said, convention is that a draw is generally agreed to before having to resort to a claimed draw and I still feel it was poor form and unsportsmanlike to play the clock in this situation.
Okay. Are you going to try to tell us that in every situation in which your opponent makes a mistake, you don't take advantage of it? If your opponent blunders, do you decline to take the hanging piece, or give one back in return? If your opponent has the opportunity to claim a draw by three fold repetition, but doesn't, is it really your job to help him?
I think you are confusing good sportsmanship with having no interest in winning the game.
The only example of poor sportsmanship that I see here is the decision to post this game, with the player's name, and publicly castigate him, when in fact it seems that the one who lost simply was unaware of the proper procedure to claim the draw.
If anyone really feels like chess is a charity rather than a competitive game, let's play a few dozen games and you can help me by agreeing to a draw on move 5. My rating can use the boost.
LOL well said man, well said.
drd wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
I stand corrected -- there is no longer an explicit rule to address perpetual check (although there once was)
There has never been an explicit rule for perpetual.
"The Offical Blue Book and Encyclopedia of Chess" by Kenneth Harkness, 1957 Edition:
"the old rule covering draw by perpetual check has been abandoned. A player who can subject his opponent's King to an endless series of checks can force a third repetition of the position and claim the draw."
another troll-thread
this site is getting overwhelmed by them
soon it will be impossible to find *chess* info here
Duffer1965 wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
I stand corrected -- there is no longer an explicit rule to address perpetual check (although there once was) as the claimed draw is deferred to the threefold repetition or the 50 move rules which will eventually arise in a perpetual check situation. That being said, convention is that a draw is generally agreed to before having to resort to a claimed draw and I still feel it was poor form and unsportsmanlike to play the clock in this situation.
Okay. Are you going to try to tell us that in every situation in which your opponent makes a mistake, you don't take advantage of it? If your opponent blunders, do you decline to take the hanging piece, or give one back in return? If your opponent has the opportunity to claim a draw by three fold repetition, but doesn't, is it really your job to help him?
I think you are confusing good sportsmanship with having no interest in winning the game.
The only example of poor sportsmanship that I see here is the decision to post this game, with the player's name, and publicly castigate him, when in fact it seems that the one who lost simply was unaware of the proper procedure to claim the draw.
If anyone really feels like chess is a charity rather than a competitive game, let's play a few dozen games and you can help me by agreeing to a draw on move 5. My rating can use the boost.
I think you're confusing a straw man for a valid argument. This wasn't five moves into a game that had yet to be decided, this was a clearly drawn position.
Do you think that in tournament play that a player in the same position as the original poster's opponent would repeatedly decline draw offers because their opponent had yet to technically trigger the threefold repetition? If they did, do you really think that they'd come away from it with their reputation unscathed? I'd hope (and believe) that for most people honour would kick in an they'd do the "sportsmanlike" thing, which is to agree to the draw -- and that's for a game that does matter. It's been repeatedly pointed out that this one does not, and that's a two way street: Both with respect to the original poster allowing the water to run off of his back (and yes, especially by not posting the offending players handle), but also for his opponent who apparently put so much creedence into winning that he prefered to try to weasel out a win over accepting a draw offer in a drawn position.
TheGrobe wrote:
Duffer1965 wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
for most people honour would kick in an they'd do the "sportsmanlike" thing, which is to agree to the draw -- and that's for a game that does matter. It's been repeatedly pointed out that this one does not, and that's a two way street: Both with respect to the original poster allowing the water to run off of his back (and yes, especially by not posting the offending players handle), but also for his opponent who apparently put so much creedence into winning that he prefered to try to weasel out a win over accepting a draw offer in a drawn position.
Where in the original post or any where else does it indicate that the loser of this game offered a draw? If he was successful in creating a three-fold repetition, his opponent would have been unable to decline the draw if he hit the offer draw button.
It didn't -- but there would really be no merit in the complaint if he hadn't. It's implied, and I'm giving the original poster enough credit to assume that he offered the draw.
My point is that there are often differences between what is the honourable thing to do, and the letter of the law. Sadly, what's fair and just often gets set aside in deference to the letter of the law if there is gain to be had (in this case, a win from a drawn position, more often in the business world when there's profit to be had). Anonymity, such as afforded on the Internet, has a tendency to exacerbate the tendency towards these ethical lapses. Just because something is not explicitly disallowed doesn't make it right to do it, and that's ultimately the basis for what is and is not sportsmanlike. Is it subjective? Yes, but my take on this situation is that the original poster's grievance, however poorly tabled, is justified.
Nice Sicileon play non the less.
Thats how its spelled, right?
Further complicating things is that the draw by perpetual check must be claimed by the person giving the checks.
Of course, if there is a 3-fold draw repetition claim, then that is different, and either player can claim. Just remember that in over-the-board games, that the proper method for claiming such a draw is BEFORE your move, to bring over a TD, and indicate to them that your intention is to make the move which would lead to a triple repetition. In practice, it's courtesy to offer a draw to your opponent first. But of course you opponent may indicate that the proper method for offering a draw is "with the move", so in that case it may be better to bring over the TD.
But back to perpetual check - it may be the case that the person doing the checking is simply "gaining time" and intends to deviate to some other line, of course before a triple repetition has been reached.