What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?

Also, if he can check you all over the board, maybe he can goad you into a mistake that wins for him. Chess.

aint nothing wrong with it, yes its annoying, but it is the game. as commented many times kings safety is key and lacking that cost you the win, and a game you should of won ended up a draw, so just remember in future king safety is key

It's not cheap. You left yourself open for a sucker punch.

"Prevent all counterplay." -- Shereshevsky in Endgame Strategy (and I'm sure in many other books on attacking).

What good is your mate-in-3 when your opponent has a mate-in-2?

OP should see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swindle_%28chess%29

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1252040

Cheap or good playing? Dem da rules! If you can't mate your opponent, then you can't win.  If you played without the 50 move rule or repeating a position  3 times, then the game would never end.... so its a draw.  If you are unable to process this logic then perhaps a game such as chess that requires a great deal of logic is not for you.  

But I want to attack. I don't want to worry about protecting my King. Only my opponent has to protect his King. :P

I suppose if you were winning and accidently stalemated you'd not like that either.  Or if you were winning in material and overlooked a checkmate you'd not like that either.

It's all part of the rules.

I had a game that I losing badly.  After the game I ran it through a computer and found the evaluation at one point reached -27.  I was able to make a sacrifice and get him into a perpetual check.  I'm still very proud of that comeback.  As I type this, I can't help the fact a smile is forming on my face.

When I'm winning a game, I generally look out for stalemates, perpetual checks, and cheap check-mates.  It's part of the responsibility of the winning side.

(ponz111) You did not have a winning position if your oppoent was able to draw by perpetual check. You just thought you have a winning position. 

Said perfectly Ponz !....As much as I despise perpetuals (and especially forced Queen trades dissipating my apparently winning position) I've learned to realize it's one of the "what....ever" parts of the game....

Winning means that your opponent can't draw.If your opponent could draw then you weren't winning.Finding a way to draw a lost position , is an art.So your opponent played equally well as you  and he deserved the draw.He saw something you missed.

Or you can make like Tal and make a perpetual even when you know that you are winning, just because a draw is enough and your oponnent refused your draw offer some moves before:

After 7 pages, he won´t forget this topic.

WAH WAH WAH!  It's not cheap you fool!  It's part of the freaking game.  Chess ain't a one way street.  It's a game of Attack and Defense.  Just because you are up a pawn, or ahead in development, does not mean that you should not have to be responsible for your own King.  The goal, first and foremost, is to save your own King.  You save your King, you get half a point!  Period, end of story!  The second goal is to then annihilate your opponent's King.  You do that, you get the other half of the point.  Perpetual Check is one way to save your own King.  If your opponent must move his King indefinitely, he obviously doesn't have the time to mate you, and you survive!

Think of chess as 2 available half points.  One for each King.  If it survives, the half point goes to the survivor.  If it's mated (not mated in 1 move after yours is mated, once one King is mated, game over, doesn't matter "how close" the other was), the half point goes to the executor.  If it survives, it goes to the survivor.  So if both survive, it's a draw, and each player gets half a point.  If one kills the other, it's half a point for the kill, another half for his own king surviving, and so he wins 1 to 0, and is recorded as such (1-0 or 0-1).

God it drives me bonkers how many whiners there are on this site that want to remove Stalemate, and Perpetual Check, and the 50 Move Rule, and 3-Fold Repetition because they aren't manly enough to accept the fact that draws are part of the freaking game, and that your task is not complete just by winning some lousy pawn!  Sheesh!

I have to agree with everyone else. Quit complaining and realize: You let your guard down. If you've got a beef with chess you shouldn't be playing it. That is a legit tactic and ANYONE can use it. It doesn't make them stupid or idiotic to use it at all. I think you're just angry you lost a game, and now you're blaming on the tactic (which is legit) that the opponet used. Quit being a sore loser and man up.

Thriller fan@ LOL! Bravo as Kaynight said! I hate whiners as well. I'm pretty sure this dude was just upset he lost, and was looking for someway to make it look like it was the 'cheap' tactic his opponet used. He needs to grow up, get real, and study chess some more. The tactic is perfectly fine. If he's calling the person who used it an idiot, then he's an idiot. I mean gosh, why do whiners even PLAY chess? You will win, and you will lose.

Hey guys, I hate to break up the fun. I am assuming that the later posts are, in part, the result of only seeing the one before yours. If you take the time to - even just cursorily - go thru the whole thread, you would notice that by about the 3rd page, the OP gets it! He realizes that he made some mistakes which allowed his opponent to chase his King and ultimately checkmate him (ouch!). He has not posted over several pages ago. I think we can stop beating him over the head now. Otherwise, I'd say we are the trolls.

Managing to get a draw is not cheap. But if he just starts checking you for hours just to delay the unavoidable is cheap.

Dr@ Derpy trolls, too! Yes lol, I would think he'd get it eventually. But if he ever feels like this again, he can just take a glance at this thread and- bam! He rethinks it.

duh!

It's part of chess.