If you are in a game that reaches a stage in which you are able to put
your opponents King in check and it has only two squares to move to;
one of which would result in certain defeat for your opponent. You
couldn't expect them to make this move but on the other hand you
are in such a perilous position yourself that if you make any other
series of moves than continually moving back and forth putting them
into check while they move back and forth between the same two
squares - you would yourself be sure to lose - is this a situation where
a draw would be considered honourable?
Would it matter if you were hopelessly behind on points?
Rhymester
After the third repeat of exactly the same position with the same
player to move, the game is a draw. Also the game is a draw by
perpetual check if you can demonstrate that you can check your
opponent for ever. If you are trying for a draw by perpetual check and
your opponent does not agree, then don't worry as the draw will occur
with the 3rd repeat of the position or if the 50 move rule comes into
force: if 50 consecutive complete moves are made without a pawn
being moved or a piece being taken, then you can claim a draw.
The repeated move rule is not supported currently.
Chrismo and myself have debated its inclusion for some time - the
issue being that each time we check for it [everytime someone
moves] it really would work our server very hard.
So, we have a problem. The options are:
-implement it and let the service suffer as a whole. [I'm not really
happy to do this]
-leave as is.
-partial implementation, where if the repeated moves occurs
consecutively [in the end game, where it is most likely] - then flag
that. This would not provide any big overhead - and is possibly the
best, even though a compromise, solution.
Any feedback from you guys about this is appreciated. [I have been
waiting for someone to bring it up for some time]
regards,
-Russ
I would say leave it as it is. Most players should realize they are not
getting anywhere and agree a draw. I don't think these 3rd repeats of
positions occur often enough to worry too much. Speaking for myself,
I have been playing for 42 years and can only recall this happening in
one of my games.
Unless you knew had just forced a draw by the three-move rule and
had some way to indicate to the server you think it is a draw. The
server then only checks a player's request. Mind you, I guess most
people would be pretty bored by this point and draw. I must have had
at least 10 draws in this way over a much shorter period. Maybe I play
just too boringly.
Hi,
You say something that is interesting, "you are in such a perilous
position yourself .... you would yourself be sure to lose". In real life
and you were in a life and death situation wouldn't you want to survive
without being killed. I have known situations where a standoff is better
than being killed. You aren't surrendering. You are holding your
enemy at bay. You also talk about honor. I know in war some cultures
believe it is honorable to give thier life even when they will be
defeated. I don't believe that. A truce of some sort leaves both
parties alive to battle again. Daniel
I just remarked (http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/viewhistory.php?gameid=155944 moves 62...) that the 3 moves rule is not implemented.
I don't think this is too bad:
a) I can keep on moving till the game reaches the 50 moves rule (if my opponent really refues the draw)
b) I hardly happens...
but a suggestion: offer a button "watch the three moves" or "alert 3-moves-rule for this game" and then the server checks. If one of the two players wants the server to check the rule he can activate this.
I agree - it would be a good compromise to add a button that will check to see if the third repetition of a position has been reached. The system would not have to cache all the previous positions ahead of time, but could walk through the game upon the request being received. It probably wouldn't come up that often, but would be helpful when playing an obstinate opponent who refuses to draw. If the positions don't repeat consecutively, it would be very helpful to be able to have the server check.
Originally posted by RhymesterOf course it is hounourable. Perpetual check is part of the game - it is something a player that is clearly in a loosing position should look for. It is the winning player's job to make sure that he doesn't allow a situation where his opponent could force a draw by perpetual check. If the winning player fails to take this into account, then that's his blunder - quite the same as if he had accidentally put you in a stale mate. So don't you have any qualms about forcing the draw! 🙂
If you are in a game that reaches a stage in which you are able to put
your opponents King in check and it has only two squares to move to;
one of which would result in certain defeat for your opponent. You
couldn't expect them to make this move but on the other hand you
are in such a perilous position yourself that if you make any other
series ...[text shortened]... considered honourable?
Would it matter if you were hopelessly behind on points?
Rhymester
-Jarno
- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 599534
Originally posted by RhymesterAs Pyrrho has just said, perpetual check is part of the game, honorable, and in actual over the board play many grandmasters have triggered off sparkling combinations to achieve a perpetual. 😀
If you are in a game that reaches a stage in which you are able to put
your opponents King in check and it has only two squares to move to;
one of which would result in certain defeat for your opponent. You
couldn't expect them to make this move but on the other hand you
are in such a perilous position yourself that if you make any other
series ...[text shortened]... considered honourable?
Would it matter if you were hopelessly behind on points?
Rhymester
Originally posted by thireI agree, though I'd say the button should be "check for draw" and do tests for all the 'impossible win' situations e.g. King v King, or King + rook v king etc., plus the 3-times the same rule (I believe its the board position the same three times on a given players turn, not necc in a 6-move repeated cycle).
I just remarked (http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/viewhistory.php?gameid=155944 moves 62...) that the 3 moves rule is not implemented.
I don't think this is too bad:
a) I can keep on moving till the game reaches the 50 moves rule (if my opponent really refues the draw)
b) I hardly happens...
but a suggestion: offer a button "watch the three moves" or " ...[text shortened]... erver checks. If one of the two players wants the server to check the rule he can activate this.
Originally posted by Toeagreed - it shouldn't be too taxing for the server to scan through the odd game on request & spot "no win" situations. It is also possible that a 3 possition repatition could be reached by design of one player but oversight of the other (they don't realise that it's the 3rd time) Therefore the system must be able to scan back through the game & not just watch to see you do it again.
[b]I agree, though I'd say the button should ... do tests for all the 'impossible win' situations e.g. ...King + rook v king
Toe, you need to check out how to mate with King & rook v's king - it very possible to force this mate. I'll play a set piece game with you if you need a demonstration.
Originally posted by belgianfreakTwo weeks later I check the post: very very very true belgianfreak! I just keep getting my names mixed up. I meant King and Knight v King. I think my mistake happens 'cos I never actually call a Rook a Rook: I always call them castles or towers. And Knights horses. 😀
agreed - it shouldn't be too taxing for the server to scan through the odd game on request & spot "no win" situations. It is also possible that a 3 possition repatition could be reached by design of one player but oversight of the other (they don't realise that it's the 3rd time) Therefore the system must be able to scan back through the game & not ...[text shortened]... possible to force this mate. I'll play a set piece game with you if you need a demonstration.