What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?
 
    
  
  
   
    
  
  
  If your opponent is able to perpetually check your King, you are in no sense "handily winning." You sold out your King's security to obtain a material advantage.
I had two rooks to his one. He had a knight that was pinned on the back rank by my queen and my bishop was in play to take that knight. It just happened to be that the board was wide open, but my king was never in any danger because he could not move his pieces. He literally had to check me every time or he would have lost.
what a divvy.
 
    
  
  
  For anyone who feels the perpetual check rule is unjust, it's worth remembering that there has always only been one way to prove a win in chess - checkmate the opponent. If the opponent can permanently prevent you from checkmating them, you cannot have a win. Perpetual check is such a way.
 
    
  
  
  If your opponent can draw by perpetual check he is not losing.
(Why do people who don´t accept - or understand - the rules of the game play chess?)
 
    
  
  
  If the opponent has a perpetual check available, then they AREN'T losing.
I came here just to say this, and you already said it.
 
    
  
  
  they're very annoying, perpetual check needs to be patched and prevented
No....dorks like you need to be prevented from playing.
 
    
  
  
  It livens up the game--someone who launches a speculative sacrificial attack that fizzles out may still be able to draw by perpetual check.
 
     
     
     
     
    