In defense of the OP. I think he did get over it after he calmed down. At one point he actually started analyzing his play and understanding some of the mistakes that led to this disappointing ending.
What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?
Sort:
Apr 15, 2014
0
#63
He's just frustrated lol.Probably just a beginner.Id be bitter too if that happened to me.The best way to accept things like this is to picture yourself on the other side of the board.
"He was only able to draw due to the rules of the game." lol so profound.
Any more classic lines like this?
SavageLotus wrote:
Yes its cheap, but its legal.
Why are people calling this cheap? It's no different than an exhausted boxer going in for a clinch to avoid being punched. Yes, it makes the crowd boo and it's not what they paid to see, but you can't demand that that fighter come out swinging and get his head handed to him. He has the right to defend his (err... King's) life, and if you don't like it, do better boxing to keep him off of you.
its a great strategy in a losing position. I just did that in a game today he was up a rook and I had his queen pinned between our pawns and was attacking his queen either way he went. I offered the draw before I did it which he refused and then offered me back when he knew he was going to have to exchange it for a bishop. I thought it was ingenious, maybe your playing the wrong game.who knows man.
Well clinching is actually breaking the rules.
Scottrf wrote:
Well clinching is actually breaking the rules.
It is? I was under the impression that it's a legal part of boxing and there's a section of rules concerning it.
Na. It's tolerated to an extent but you can be deducted points for excessive clinching. Berto-Collazo for one example. Akinwande was disqualified vs Lewis.
I figured chess to be a street brawl.
Shmuckley wrote:
I figured chess to be a street brawl.
Might bring more spectators.
I would love to get a book on perpetual check. I was once in an online game where I made a piece sacrifice that I thought was a decisive win, then discovered I had actually blundered. Since the sac had opended up the king's defense, I just settled for the perpetual. My opponent had a few comments but understood. I think it is not only fair but a superior defense.
Its a shame that chess "characters" are frowned upon in chess. I mean, when Tyson munched an ear, not many eyebrows were raised. Sure what else would we expect from him ?
If people like Fischer were just accepted as being like Tysons and Cantona's, then it could be more popular. What's a sport without baddies ? Oh i forgot! chess isnt a sport.
if chess was a full contact sport Id be alot better at it.
I'm not sure that's quite an accurate recollection that nobody was shocked by Tysons appetite!
ggg game 47 ronis
¡Por favor, sea relevante, útil y agradable!
It is part of the game.
Apr 15, 2014
0
#78
If they have a perpetual check, then they're not losing, they're drawing.
If their checks are merely for nuisance, get over it, and just win the game.
What do I feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing? I feel that they, unlike the OP, have read the rulebook.
Apr 15, 2014
0
#80
I want to dedicate this game that I just played to the OP, I was white:
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=780573787
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 think it is part of the game and find it more laughable that you have a problem with it. If you don't like it, defend against it.