Perpetual Check, Unsportsmanlike Conduct?

[tork]

May 2, 2011 12:13:17 GMT -5 synthetic said:

May 2, 2011 11:01:42 GMT -5 tork said:

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.

I did what I had to, to not lose, IMO. She had other moves she could have made to stay out of it, and choose not to make them. So she played her game not to lose and I played mine, not to lose.

[sisyfos]

Tork was in his good right to play as he did. Threefold repetition is a rare event but should be observed by all players and there are many legendary GM games ending with a threefold repetition.

However, I fail to understand why AndreaH didn't just play differently? She could've easily avoided the threefold repetition and won the game. Usually in games drawn by threefold repetition one player overlooked the threefold repetition, but that's not the case in this game... AndreaH knowingly played the threefold repetition.

If anyone should be ashamed it's AndreaH for her postings.

[sdr46]

"Perpetual Check" is a very valid method to force a draw. Grandmasters do it whenever they have a losing position and have no other way out. Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't know much about chess.

Just suppose you were in a real battle for your life. You were losing on all sides and were about to be overrun. The only hope you have is to counter attack your opponent, so that they couldn't kill you. You wouldn't be able to kill them, but you could stop them from killing you by constantly harassing them.

Wouldn't you do that?

[hurricane]

Agreed. Tork played fairly and AndreaH's accusations have no standing.

[mserovey]

I currently have a dead drawn position, both sides have just a King and a Bishop left. My opponent, 500674 vs ZorMaster refuses to accept a draw and is making me play out a game that neither one of us can win because she thinks that I used a chess engine against her! I have found no rules here forbidding the use of a chess database or engine, so her complaint is silly even if it was true! I need this game ended as a draw so that I can get this nut case out of my life!

[Stan Steliga]

That rule is currently not recognized at this site, but that does'nt mean that can't change.

I thought I covered all official ways to end a game. I didn't have the system automatically recognize the 50-move rule, or the 3-fold repeat rule because those rules require a player to recognize the availability of the rule, and to claim it. At least that's the way I saw the rules.

I'll take a look around and see what the major chess groups recognize.

What do others think here? Should that rule be automatic? I see this on Wikipedia (not that I'd make a change based just one Wikipedia!):
----------------------
Insufficient material
An endgame scenario in which all pawns have been captured, and one side has only its king remaining while the other is down to just a king, a king plus one knight, a king plus one bishop, or indeed a king plus any number of bishops on the same colour as each other (up to nine), as is possible via underpromotion. A king and bishop versus a king and bishop with the bishops on the same color is also a draw. The position is a draw because it is impossible for the dominant side to deliver checkmate regardless of play. Situations where checkmate is possible only if the inferior side blunders are covered by the fifty-move rule.
----------------------

I'll get back to you soon with a resolution. Feedback from everyone else would be good too...

[Stan Steliga]

OK - This is far more interesting than I expected...

Here is a page that does some great analysis:
www.e4ec.org/immr.html

It looks like your game
www.stansco.com/cgi-bin/nc_game.cgi?500674
IS NOT in an Insufficient Material position. If both Bishops were on
the same color, then it would be Insufficient Material.

I am going to add an Insufficient Material Stalemate rule here at
Stan's NetChess that will automatically recognize Cases 1, 2, 3 & 4 from:
www.e4ec.org/immr.html

[gambit007]

Stan

Excellent work. The more you can automate the better!

It is impossible to force mate with only a bishop and a king, as in game 500674. Given the rankings of both players, neither of them is likely to play so poorly that they assist their opponent in achieving a mate.

If both players were mature/ rational, they would agree a draw. However, this looks rather unlikely. One player may rise above the situation and offer a "cancel". Perhaps more likely, they will continue wasting each other's time until the 50 move rule kicks in.

[Stan Steliga]

Thanks for the feedback gambit - but you're saying that game should be a stalemate. You don't mean that the site should automatically declare a stalemate do you? The position is not covered by the hard rules documented at
www.e4ec.org/immr.html

Even though it is unlikely that checkmate can be reached, it does not seem right for the site to automatically declare a stalemate there.

What do you think?

[gambit007]

Stan

If one player had a bishop and a king, and the other player only had a king, then the system should automatically declare a draw, because checkmate cannot be achieved. However, if the players each have a bishop and a king, it is possible for checkmate to be achieved, but it is impossible to force a mate. In the game in question, checkmate cannot be forced. Technically, it would therefore be wrong for the system to automatically declare a draw as there is a remote possibility that one player would make a mistake, blocking his own King and thereby allowing himself to be mated.

With two players of this calibre, this will not happen. If they were playing over the board, they would immediately recognise the draw. As, between the two of them, they are not prepared to accept a draw or a "cancel", it appears that they will continue making pointless moves until a draw can be claimed under the 50 move rule, or until one player forfeits.

So, I think the system should let them waste their time for 50 moves, after which a draw can be claimed. However, you might prevent such ridiculous player behaviour arising in the future by enabling the system to recognise a draw where one player has a king and a bishop, or a knig and a knight, against a king.

You must have the patience of a saint!

[Stan Steliga]

OK - It's all in place. The "Insufficient Material" rule is documented on the Game Rules page at: www.stansco.com/netchess/rules.html

[ZorMaster]

Additional information for those who do not learn the rules yet or in the course of years have been forgotten, also applies to the undersigned

Natacha


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_(chess)

[mserovey]

The problem with canceling this game is that I don't get the rating points for the draw. Even so, it may be the best way to get this stalker out of my life!

[mserovey]

I now realize that the quickest way to end this farce is to keep offering Natacha my Bishop until she either takes it or accepts my draw offers. She seems to be under the mistaken impression that I will grow so tired of her rude behavior that I will just resign. I ALMOST DID just let her win on time forfeit becasue I was too ill to deal with her!

[mikewitek]

mserovey your game is 100% a draw why waste the time running around the board