|
|
Post by andreah on May 2, 2011 1:24:24 GMT -5
I'm involved with a game where another member whom is currently losing has decided to check me over and over in hopes that I will accept a draw. He has other moves he can make so its not a forced stalemate situation. Since the Perpetual Check rule no longer exists in chess, I technically don't have to accept a draw but other rules such as threefold repetition and fifty-move rule will come into play eventually anyway.
I don't think any of these draw situations are automated on this site, so what do you guys usually do about it? I'd rather not accept a draw but I figured I'd see what you guys think. In other chess variants like xiangqi and shogi, giving perpetual check is strictly forbidden and counts as an automatic loss for the giver, I wish we had a similar recourse to address this.
IMHO any player that resorts to such childish behavior is a coward exhibiting unsportsmanlike conduct. Unfortunately there is no rule against that, so what are your thoughts?
-AndreaH
|
|
tork
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by tork on May 2, 2011 4:01:47 GMT -5
You have other moves you can make also. And I would be careful about insulting others. Specially since you are new to the site, and I have been here almost 12 years!
game #500564
|
|
|
|
Post by andreah on May 2, 2011 4:15:21 GMT -5
A person is defined by the sum of their actions, "Perpetual Check" to avoid losing a game has no better description than cowardly. I apologize if that offends you, if I may suggest, play better next time so this incident isn't necessary.
How long you have been on a site does not change things other than you've likely bullied others into a draw before, so my position shouldn't surprise you.
|
|
tork
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by tork on May 2, 2011 4:17:08 GMT -5
www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article9.2 The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves): a. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or b. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move. Positions as in (a) and (b) areconsidered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured in this manner. When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its castling rights, if any, only after it is moved.
|
|
|
|
Post by gambit007 on May 2, 2011 5:53:58 GMT -5
I fail to see Andreah's point here. Chess is a contest of skill and ability in which the objective is to beat your opponent. Your opponent, naturally, uses all of his skill and ability to stop you beating him. This includes the utilisation of perpetual check to force a draw. Is Andreah suggesting that her opponent should help Andreah to win the match? Would Andreah feel better if her opponent deliberately let her win? Andreah's opponent is perfectly entitled to play for a draw.
In a perpetual check situation, usual good practice is to accept the fact that you have failed to defeat your opponent and concede the draw in a sporting manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by andreah on May 2, 2011 7:28:05 GMT -5
I fail to see Andreah's point here. Chess is a contest of skill and ability in which the objective is to beat your opponent. Your opponent, naturally, uses all of his skill and ability to stop you beating him. This includes the utilisation of perpetual check to force a draw. Is Andreah suggesting that her opponent should help Andreah to win the match? Would Andreah feel better if her opponent deliberately let her win? Andreah's opponent is perfectly entitled to play for a draw. In a perpetual check situation, usual good practice is to accept the fact that you have failed to defeat your opponent and concede the draw in a sporting manner. lol? Sorry, so your suggesting that preventing the game from actually being played by employing a stall tactic in hopes of being saved by a rule intended to prevent needless additional play is somehow skillful or requires ability? The rule(s) in place were never intended to apply to such situations because no one with "skill" or actual ability would ever resort to them, as evident by that "strategy" and I use that term very loosely, is all but banned in most circles. tork has decided he has failed to beat me and given up on the game, which is fine but he should resign like anyone else who doesn't wish to finish. In either case, I have no intention of granting a draw to spare tork's bruised ego, if Stan feels he has a right to it he can take care of that without me anyway. |
|
tork
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by tork on May 2, 2011 7:39:16 GMT -5
I fail to see Andreah's point here. Chess is a contest of skill and ability in which the objective is to beat your opponent. Your opponent, naturally, uses all of his skill and ability to stop you beating him. This includes the utilisation of perpetual check to force a draw. Is Andreah suggesting that her opponent should help Andreah to win the match? Would Andreah feel better if her opponent deliberately let her win? Andreah's opponent is perfectly entitled to play for a draw. In a perpetual check situation, usual good practice is to accept the fact that you have failed to defeat your opponent and concede the draw in a sporting manner. lol? Sorry, so your suggesting that preventing the game from actually being played by employing a stall tactic in hopes of being saved by a rule intended to prevent needless additional play is somehow skillful or requires ability? The rule(s) in place were never intended to apply to such situations because no one with "skill" or actual ability would ever resort to them, as evident by that "strategy" and I use that term very loosely, is all but banned in most circles. tork has decided he has failed to beat me and given up on the game, which is fine but he should resign like anyone else who doesn't wish to finish. In either case, I have no intention of granting a draw to spare tork's bruised ego, if Stan feels he has a right to it he can take care of that without me anyway. LOL, at my bruised ego!!! I'll make a move when I'm informed if it is a draw or not.  |
|
|
|
Post by synthetic on May 2, 2011 9:52:43 GMT -5
It's a interesting situation, I understand both parties on some level of the problem. It is typically considered pretty shameful to push for a draw by keeping the other party in check when you have no actual chance of checkmating them which looks to be the case here.
Yes, tork forced andreah to block in repetition by moving a lone queen back and forth that couldn't actually achieve a checkmate, on that alone I say shame on you tork. However, in doing so, even though forced upon them andreah did make moves 3 times to the same spaces which is a draw requirement. The rulebook for standard chess as far as I know doesn't have a provision saying tork can't do this, but as andreah said many other variants do so maybe it should, who am I to say...
Personally I'd just make the best of a bad situation, accept the draw and just avoid future games with tork, I don't agree with what he did but its just one game, there are lots of nice people here so don't take it too personally.
Matt,
|
|
tork
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by tork on May 2, 2011 10:13:30 GMT -5
It's a interesting situation, I understand both parties on some level of the problem. It is typically considered pretty shameful to push for a draw by keeping the other party in check when you have no actual chance of checkmating them which looks to be the case here. Yes, tork forced andreah to block in repetition by moving a lone queen back and forth that couldn't actually achieve a checkmate, on that alone I say shame on you tork. However, in doing so, even though forced upon them andreah did make moves 3 times to the same spaces which is a draw requirement. The rulebook for standard chess as far as I know doesn't have a provision saying tork can't do this, but as andreah said many other variants do so maybe it should, who am I to say... Personally I'd just make the best of a bad situation, accept the draw and just avoid future games with tork, I don't agree with what he did but its just one game, there are lots of nice people here so don't take it too personally. Matt, I put her in a position, where she either made the move I wanted her to, to help me win, or do what she did, and it be a draw. I don't see what's wrong with me playing, NOT TO LOSE! |
|
|
|
Post by synthetic on May 2, 2011 10:47:55 GMT -5
It's a interesting situation, I understand both parties on some level of the problem. It is typically considered pretty shameful to push for a draw by keeping the other party in check when you have no actual chance of checkmating them which looks to be the case here. Yes, tork forced andreah to block in repetition by moving a lone queen back and forth that couldn't actually achieve a checkmate, on that alone I say shame on you tork. However, in doing so, even though forced upon them andreah did make moves 3 times to the same spaces which is a draw requirement. The rulebook for standard chess as far as I know doesn't have a provision saying tork can't do this, but as andreah said many other variants do so maybe it should, who am I to say... Personally I'd just make the best of a bad situation, accept the draw and just avoid future games with tork, I don't agree with what he did but its just one game, there are lots of nice people here so don't take it too personally. Matt, I put her in a position, where she either made the move I wanted her to, to help me win, or do what she did, and it be a draw. I don't see what's wrong with me playing, NOT TO LOSE! That position you mention didn't leave any actual option other that what it looks like she did. The only move she could feasibly make that could give you any advantage is moving away from her rook so that you could take it. Are you seriously suggesting that she give away a key piece to even the playing field for you? Thats no way to play a game bro. I'm not telling you what to do but in your shoes I'd play out the loss, she took more of your pieces of yours than you took of hers, which is a key aspect of the game, by definition she out played you. Don't get me wrong, if by repeatedly putting her in check you had any real chance of moving the game forward or were forcing her into a eventually checkmate I'd see no fault. Thats not what happened, I only fault you for harassing with your queen instead of trying to salvage the game, I don't know if you can still win but you stopped trying nobody likes a quitter. |
|
tork
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by tork on May 2, 2011 11:01:42 GMT -5
I put her in a position, where she either made the move I wanted her to, to help me win, or do what she did, and it be a draw. I don't see what's wrong with me playing, NOT TO LOSE! That position you mention didn't leave any actual option other that what it looks like she did. The only move she could feasibly make that could give you any advantage is moving away from her rook so that you could take it. Are you seriously suggesting that she give away a key piece to even the playing field for you? Thats no way to play a game bro. I'm not telling you what to do but in your shoes I'd play out the loss, she took more of your pieces of yours than you took of hers, which is a key aspect of the game, by definition she out played you. Don't get me wrong, if by repeatedly putting her in check you had any real chance of moving the game forward or were forcing her into a eventually checkmate I'd see no fault. Thats not what happened, I only fault you for harassing with your queen instead of trying to salvage the game, I don't know if you can still win but you stopped trying nobody likes a quitter. If I don't keep her in check, I lose! Should I just resign and give her the game? Oh wait, no one likes a quitter, so I can't do that, right? adds smiley to show sarcasim  |
|
|
|
Post by Stan Steliga on May 2, 2011 12:00:07 GMT -5
Wow - just saw this thread... I'm not going to play any favorites. Rules are rules. If someone wants to claim 3-fold-repetition, then send me an e-mail with the game number and I'll make a ruling - but remeber - it has to be the last move in the game that results in a position that has been there at least two other times in the game.
|
|
tork
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by tork on May 2, 2011 12:01:39 GMT -5
Wow - just saw this thread... I'm not going to play any favorites. Rules are rules. If someone wants to claim 3-fold-repetition, then send me an e-mail with the game number and I'll make a ruling - but remeber - it has to be the last move in the game that results in a position that has been there at least two other times in the game. 500564 |
|
|
|
Post by synthetic on May 2, 2011 12:13:17 GMT -5
That position you mention didn't leave any actual option other that what it looks like she did. The only move she could feasibly make that could give you any advantage is moving away from her rook so that you could take it. Are you seriously suggesting that she give away a key piece to even the playing field for you? Thats no way to play a game bro. I'm not telling you what to do but in your shoes I'd play out the loss, she took more of your pieces of yours than you took of hers, which is a key aspect of the game, by definition she out played you. Don't get me wrong, if by repeatedly putting her in check you had any real chance of moving the game forward or were forcing her into a eventually checkmate I'd see no fault. Thats not what happened, I only fault you for harassing with your queen instead of trying to salvage the game, I don't know if you can still win but you stopped trying nobody likes a quitter. If I don't keep her in check, I lose! Should I just resign and give her the game? Oh wait, no one likes a quitter, so I can't do that, right? adds smiley to show sarcasim Choosing to quit playing the game is not the same as resigning from it. By refusing to try and win you effectively quit, resigning actually ends the game. I refer you to my previous point though, there is a 0% chance of putting her in checkmate by moving your queen like you did but that doesn't mean you couldn't do something actually productive, you have other pieces and you can do something else with your queen. Will you win? Maybe not, but at least your doing something that could lead towards one. |
|
|
|
Post by Stan Steliga on May 2, 2011 12:22:07 GMT -5
I have ended the game in a draw (stalemate). I believe that is the correct thing to do going by the rules.
|
|
