rychessmaster1 wrote:
if you allow a perpet in a winning position you are no longer winning
your own fault for missing it
exactly what im saying lol
What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?
Sort:
Sep 11, 2021
0
#623
If you think it's cheap, you're probably smoking that MaryJuana, MaryandJuana.
Sep 11, 2021
0
#624
There is no such thing as "winning by material advantage". Either you can checkmate your opponent or you can't. Going after material and neglecting your own king's safety often leads to disaster--just look at how many of Morphy's games ended with him down decisive material because he sacrificed most of his pieces in mating combinations.
No matter how strong your attacking position, it is irrelevant should you leave your own king exposed to a counterattack, even if that attack is only sufficient to get a perpetual check.
A: If I'm behind and I can put a king in check and keep putting him in check then I have the initiative and opponent can't deliver a coup d'grace. And as long as I have the initiative, there's always the chance my opponent can hang a piece. I've seen opponents hang rooks and queens getting harassed like this. I myself turned a game around the other day down two pieces by gaining the initiative and just harassing their king waiting for them to make a mistake by hanging a piece, or allowing a fork or a skewer.
Doesn't aways work. But works enough to make it worthwhile.
Sep 11, 2021
0
#626
I wouldn’t blame my opponent for doing perpetual checks. Most times it’s the best move, or a tactic and part of the game.
Sep 11, 2021
0
#627
If they have a perpetual check then they're not in a losing position, they're in a drawn one
What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?>>
I feel that I blundered and let them escape. If you blame them for doing that and don't blame yourself, then you're a fool.
MaryandJuana 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.
A fool.
Sep 12, 2021
0
#631
MaryandJuana wrote:
He was only able to draw due to the rules of the game.
When you checkmate somebody, you are only able to win because of the rules of the game.
Sep 12, 2021
0
#632
It's like asking "how do you feel about blundering a completely winning endgame and making a draw?..." Uh... I feel... Traumatized by it?... lol
They call it "Blundering a perpetual" for a reason... But hey be easy on yourself it even happens to GMs once in a blue moon....
its part of the game tactics
I checked someone about 30 times in a row to wind down his clock and until he blundered just the other day. I offered a draw after the 5th check but he refused, so I keep checking, I eventually won the game on time
In blitz .. continual nuisance checks [as opposed to perpetual check ]
in a losing position are annoying and puerile.
Sep 13, 2021
0
#636
ATV-STEVE wrote:
In blitz .. continual nuisance checks [as opposed to perpetual check ]
in a losing position are annoying and puerile.
Just because someone can't escape checks (though he can escape a threefold repetition) doesn't mean that isn't a valid path to pursue.
Optimissed wrote:
What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?>>
I feel that I blundered and let them escape. If you blame them for doing that and don't blame yourself, then you're a fool.
recently i thought for sure i had the win. then my opponent drew me with perpetual check. i felt just as you described, if not worse for missing it.
'What do you feel about players...'
I have no feelings related to them, LOL. It's fair and, if you have an opportunity to save your life and stay alive, you must use it regardless of the opponent's feelings.
Sep 6, 2022
0
#639
They're pathetic...
Excerpt from a game:
It's nothing but delaying the inevitable, what purpose does it serve?
After losing the queen they finally played the logical moves and resigned a few moves later, which they should've done before the pointless checks, since there was no way to avoid losing. Worst part of it all was that they actually took about half a minute to think about those checks.
If you take your time and come up with a genius move: all the better for you. But when you clearly know you've lost (otherwise they wouldn't be going to the perpetual check), stop wasting time: just make a move (even if it's a useless check) or resign.
Honestly, the only time you should be perpetually checking is if it serves the purpose of getting the king where you need him to be to either win the game or win a piece.
But apparently the game of chess has some weird psychological impact on some people where they just can't accept a loss and resort to infantile behaviour.
Edit: Here's an example of when you do need to perpetually check after move 40 (because of a mistake I made, but still winning, so not checking out of spite, but to secure the win, and otherwise it would've simply been constant checks until checkmate anyway)
if you allow a perpet in a winning position you are no longer winning
your own fault for missing it