If you can't win, then you must look for a way to draw...and perpetual check is one such way. There are not two outcomes to this game...but three.
What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?
Sort:
Apr 17, 2014
0
#183
WalhallaRoad wrote:
lol what a joke. He was only able to draw due to the rules of the game.
OK, I was going to post on this (still will), and as I'm figuring out how to properly indicate a quote here, I see that someone else beat me to it.
I'm going to (re)acknowledge this bon mot, nonetheless.
I know it was probably inadvertant - but the quote above... is just about the funniest thing I have seen in these forums. Classic.
WalhallaRoad wrote:
This is my one beef with chess. You shouldn't award someone a draw just because he can check your king all over the board and be real cheap about it. There should be a cut off point to the amount of useless checks you can make in order to secure a cheap draw.
If it was a true perpetual check (i.e., a repeated position) there actually is a cut off point to the number of checks: it's five (three iterations of the same check with another check between each).
It wasn't perpetual; with each check he chased your king further away from your defenses into a position where you could be checkmated.
Your points about awarding him a draw, and the checks being "useless" are invalid and irrelevant, because the game wasn't a draw; you lost because you neglected the security of your king.
GreenCastleBlock wrote:
WalhallaRoad wrote:
lol what a joke. He was only able to draw due to the rules of the game.
What a joke.
That is a legal part of the game and you must learn to accept it. Grandmasters do it.
Apr 17, 2014
0
#187
BurtP wrote:
WalhallaRoad wrote:
Say you're beating someone and aren't that far away from a mate. Say he somehow breaks through your defense with a queen and begins checking you all over the board. What do you feel about this? I was winning a game pretty handidly and my opponent sacrificed a pawn in order to give his queen open space to check me. It was in a position in the board where I didn't have a shield for my king and so he could have checked me as many times as he wanted. I think it's pretty cheap.
I agree, even if I am the only one apparently.
When you misplay the opening and have a worse position in the middlegame you stop fighting? Do you start to think things like "I don´t deserve to win this game, I have played so bad" or something similar?
Apr 17, 2014
0
#188
Anything within the framework of the Chess rules should be acceptable to all players. Those who do not like the application of rules should find themselves a different game-- perhaps a game with rules that are more acceptable to them.
That's part of the game. Nothing wrong with it.
no problem with that, rules are rules
Being able to convert a won position is a skill you have to learn, and blaming your opponent when you fail is lame.
As a 12 yo, I naively played an opening line that was claimed to be equal and I realized I would be lucky to draw. I saw that if I let my opponent win a piece I would be able to draw by a crazy perpetual check with my queen checking his king all over the board. I took the draw and regard it as one of my best games and lessons in chess. Since then I've won many games playing into popular theoretically innacurate assesments and watching my oppenents collapse when they met unexpected problems.
Whining about being swindled means you need to learn how to shut down counterplay.
Apr 18, 2014
0
#194
Perpetual check is a perfectly valid resource to take advantage of, not some inferior tactic to look down upon. If your opponent did not account for this, then his material superiority (if any) is irrelevant. A draw is a draw.
What if you were in a situation where you are losing and figure out a perpectual check draw?
Would you say this is not how i should play and resign?
Would Chuck Norris play by the rules and allow you to sneak off with a perpetual check followed by a checkmate ?
Of course not!
LongIslandMark wrote:
WalhallaRoad wrote:
TheHandOfGod wrote:
WalhallaRoad I sense troll. Or else, learn some chess!
not a troll, but I've learned my lesson. I'll make sure to never make a thread on this site or spend much time on these forums.
Wrong lesson I think. All serious inquiries are generally well received. I think you got flak more because the idea of "winning only because of the rules" was tasty for some.
Please do continue to post. I've done so and have gotten a great deal of instructive feedback.
The problem with feeback is that you need a sensor, when screaming in forums does not demonstrate one.
WalhallaRoad wrote:
Nah, I think if someone is beating me pretty good and has proven to be the better player, I'm not going to do a bunch of checks that lead to nothing just so I can collect points. It might be part of the game, but it's cheap and pathetic.
Perpetual check is a part of tactics, and it's not easy to find and force upon the opponent. Try to force a perpetual check every time you are losing. It's not an easy task, at all. For me, it's a brilliant manouver that only adds to the beauty of Chess.
If you didn't see it coming, he outplayed you, and he brilliantly managed to draw a lost game.
Apr 18, 2014
0
#200
Aetheldred wrote:
WalhallaRoad wrote:
Nah, I think if someone is beating me pretty good and has proven to be the better player, I'm not going to do a bunch of checks that lead to nothing just so I can collect points. It might be part of the game, but it's cheap and pathetic.
Perpetual check is a part of tactics, and it's not easy to find and force upon the opponent. Try to force a perpetual check every time you are losing. It's not an easy task, at all. For me, it's a brilliant manouver that only adds to the beauty of Chess.
If you didn't see it coming, he outplayed you, and he brilliantly managed to draw a lost game.
Actually his oponnent won the game 
Say you're beating someone and aren't that far away from a mate. Say he somehow breaks through your defense with a queen and begins checking you all over the board. What do you feel about this? I was winning a game pretty handidly and my opponent sacrificed a pawn in order to give his queen open space to check me. It was in a position in the board where I didn't have a shield for my king and so he could have checked me as many times as he wanted. I think it's pretty cheap.
I agree, even if I am the only one apparently.