i feel fine s i hv done it bfore
What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?
Sort:
Apr 23, 2014
0
#223
I feel nothing at all. Now ask me what I feel about players who allow perpetual checks when they are winning?
Apr 23, 2014
0
#224
This thread actually reminds me of a RL incident I witnessed at a schoolastic tourament once.
My friend/teammate set up a perp, and said "It's a perpetual."
His opponent said "What? There's no such thing!"
"Well, okay." said my teammate. And went on to repeat the position three times.
Then he said "I claim a draw by repetition of moves."
"You can't do that!"
"Yes, I believe I can."
Furious, his opponent goes and gets the TD. The TD looks over their scoresheets, and agrees yes, that is a draw.
At whicknpoint the opponent mutters some things I won't repeat, and storms off.
My teammate, who was prolly twice his size, says "My we're a good sport today!"
Several weeks later, I heard that pkayer was kicked out of the league, for punching an opponent who had the temerity to checkmate him.
WalhallaRoad wrote:
vanman11 wrote:
Did your opponent win the game? I'm confused because of lack of commas.
I actually made a one big mistake that allowed him to do it so I guess I can take it. I shouldn't have allowed it to happen.
I'm not saying he wasn't being stupid, or wrong, I'm just saying he calmed down later. There's no point in yelling at a noob just for being a noob.
And I wasn't just addressing you, specifically, more all the other people who are still at it. I just thought your small text was funny.
Apr 23, 2014
0
#226
Perpetual check is one strategy left in a losing players toolbox and it is up to the winning player to take that into account. I have done it and have had it done to me. They are legal, fair and simply part of the game. If you are winning and fall into a perpetual check then you made an inaccurate move that your opponent took advantage of - which is, of course, as it should be.
Apr 23, 2014
0
#227
PhDerek wrote:
. I just thought your small text was funny.
Three years ago before I had a double lens implant for cataracts my posts used to be like this. You wouldn’t believe how much flack I caught for that. So now that I can see again I don’t mind catching flack for being on the other side of the fence. >:[
Hmm... I don't think, if you want to mate, it makes sense to put yourself in a position where you will never be able to execute it. If your king is a liability, then you won't be able to play offensive moves of your own.
You are equating mate with having a mating net and you shouldn't be. Mating nets are great, but they won't lead to mate if instead of executing the mate you're babysitting your king from checks instead. You'll find if you keep your king safer, your mate threats will matter, because you will actually play them.
Apr 23, 2014
0
#229
It is certainly not unethical or cheap,remember that perpetual check is a tactic and very much within the rules of a game.Kudos to the one who finds such a resource in a difficult position.If you say you were winning but fell into a perpetual check then its your mistake similar to a blunder.
A truly good player can both set up a mate and not allow perpetual check; not just one of the two.
I hate it when it happens to me, but its legal and not cheap at all. If this happens its YOUR fault for letting it happen
May 14, 2014
0
#232
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.
That is TOTALLY cheap. It reminds me of a time I was up a pawn against somebody rated higher than me. Even though I had just won a pawn, he checkmated me two moves later. UNFAIR! I was winning! He has no honor.
May 14, 2014
0
#233
tubebender wrote:
Jimmykay 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.
That is TOTALLY cheap. It reminds me of a time I was up a pawn against somebody rated higher than me. Even though I had just won a pawn, he checkmated me two moves later. UNFAIR! I was winning! He has no honor.
That`s life in the Big City! Time to grow up and move on. No sympathy from me. If you want that, get a dog--unconditional love.
I was being sarcastic. The op is either a troll or a moron.
Allowing perpetual check is just like you drop a free piece. You lose your fuard and blunder, and you can blame no one but yourself.
If he could force a perpetual check then you were not winning. This is plain and simple.
Fantastic . they want to stall . You want to Move . Stalling wins
Post 300 !
"lol what a joke. He was only able to draw due to the rules of the game."
listen to yourself. that's the game. it actually takes talent to find a perpetual check when you're behind, and displays a certain lack of talent not to foresee it and prevent it. that's how the game's played, son. don't like it, take up checkers.
lol at this thread still being alive.
May 15, 2014
0
#240
People love this kind of thread, Walhalla. We get to laugh and feel superior. Were you serious when you wrote it, or just having fun?
There have been so many variations of this same thread...people claiming losing on the clock is unfair, etc.
All it takes is to be renewed every now and again, people will see the question and post a lambasting message, not knowing or caring that the same conversation has been going on forever.
Didactic : Crazy word man.
At least he wasn't being sesquipedalian about it.