So far 433 idiotic posts.
What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?
Sort:
Some players would be better suited to Shatranj: there a stalemate is a win; so is "Baring The King" (reducing the opponent's material to just the King) - unless he can immediately bare their King in return. 
I know that's not perpetual check, but I think it's thematically linked by its suitability for those with a dislike of making any effort to learn how to play endgames.
Murgen wrote:
Some players would be better suited to Shatranj: there a stalemate is a win; so is "Baring The King" (reducing the opponent's material to just the King) - unless he can immediately bare their King in return.
I know that's not perpetual check, but I think it's thematically linked by its suitability for those with a dislike of making any effort to learn how to play endgames.
Funny, Nigel Short was just mentioning during commentary how he was pushing for them to change stalemate to a loss. I wouldnt be against it.
Dec 12, 2014
0
#346
Stalemate being a win would be a great way to rid chess of it's endgame complexity and dumb it down.
Anyone who liked that would hate Makruk (Thai Chess), if being played by the "Counting Rules" at least.
Under certain conditions of relative material (I won't even attempt to explain them but there's a Wikipedia aricle about the game) the losing player can start counting (under specific rules).
If the winning player has not checkmated his opponent before the end of the count - the game is a draw. Anyon who wants to win there better know how to get a checkmate... and quickly!
If your opponent can do perpetual checks to you, then your opponent is not losing. This reflects the sad state of affairs in Education these days. When I was in school the whole chess club understood the true meaning of perpetual checks.
Dec 12, 2014
0
#349
Just replying to the original threat title...
If I allow my opponent to perpetual me in an otherwise winning position, then really I am the a - - hole, not him. In fact he deserves praise that he found the resource for himself. That's just chess.
If your opponent have a perpetual check then he's not losing, he's drawing.
Dec 13, 2014
0
#351
It's not really perpetual check. Eventually one of the players will run out of energy and die. Ask Newton about it.
Dec 13, 2014
0
#352
Perfectly fair and in fact it usually takes some good moves to pull it off - non issue with me.
paladin64 wrote:
Perfectly fair and in fact it usually takes some good moves to pull it off - non issue with me.
Yes, in fact, they are doing what they must. I have a friend who thinks thats nasty, but he is just angry with himself because throwing away the winning chance, lol.
Rogue_King wrote:
Stalemate being a win would be a great way to rid chess of it's endgame complexity and dumb it down.
How dare you suggest this should not be a win?
I rematch if I lose
Irontiger wrote:
Rogue_King wrote:
Stalemate being a win would be a great way to rid chess of it's endgame complexity and dumb it down.
How dare you suggest this should not be a win?
troll much?
Jion_Wansu wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Rogue_King wrote:
Stalemate being a win would be a great way to rid chess of it's endgame complexity and dumb it down.
How dare you suggest this should not be a win?
troll much?
No sense of humor at all?
Dec 13, 2014
0
#358
I feel players who do perpetual checks when losing to be sensible and resourceful.
There seems to be a common misperception that there is such a thing as a draw by perpetual check though. There isn't. You draw either by 3-fold repetition or the 50 move rule, both of which are perfectly legitimate and not as trivial to attain as just throwing a few checks on the board.
Dec 13, 2014
0
#359
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
Jion_Wansu wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Rogue_King wrote:
Stalemate being a win would be a great way to rid chess of it's endgame complexity and dumb it down.
How dare you suggest this should not be a win?
troll much?
No sense of humor at all?
Bingo! No sense of how clueless he is. That's how clueless he is.
This is the game. I should have just taken his pawn with my pawn instead of letting it advance to 7th rank. He wouldn't have been able to take it with his queen because I would have checkmated him. I was not into just running around the entire board getting checked so I basically just walked into the loss plus I was down on time by one minute and if he just kept checking me I would have eventually lost on time.
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=780432007
In fact, you missed a win late that I don't think anyone has noticed -- 37...c5 stops all the checks, and you're just winning. Instead you walked into a mate in two.
It's a game between two 1100s. Both sides will almost always miss a lot of chances. Remember this, keep your mind open to your chances when you're worse and your opponent's when they are, and keep improving.
He could have played 29...Kc6, which would have stopped the perpetual checks before they even got started.