09 Jun 07
Originally posted by xxxxxxxxThe underlying rule is "threefold repetition position" rule. It means that if the exactly the same position occurs three times, then it is a draw.
I wanted to know in RHP, how many checks is the maximum in a Perpetual Check situation before the computer automatically says it is a draw game?
Thanks.
If the same position happen due to check, or in any other circumstance, doesn't matter. Perpetual check is also a threefold repetioton.
In RHP you have to claim the draw, you don't get it automatically. If it is a correct threefold repeated postion, then you get it without any negotiation with your opponent.
09 Jun 07
Originally posted by xxxxxxxxPerpetual Check is just a special form of the '50 Move Law', so it could go on for this number after the last Pawn was moved or the last capture made.
I wanted to know in RHP, how many checks is the maximum in a Perpetual Check situation before the computer automatically says it is a draw game?
Thanks.
09 Jun 07
Originally posted by Essex 3Are there any perpetual checks where the 50 move rule would apply before a threefold repetition has happened? It sounds unlikely to me, but maybe such a case could be constructed.
Perpetual Check is just a special form of the '50 Move Law', so it could go on for this number after the last Pawn was moved or the last capture made.
09 Jun 07
Originally posted by Essex 3No, it isn't. It's a special form of threefold repetition position rule.
Perpetual Check is just a special form of the '50 Move Law', so it could go on for this number after the last Pawn was moved or the last capture made.
But so much of perpetual, it isn't; three times is enough.
09 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitIf three checks giving the same position three times, yes, that's an application of the threefold position repetition rule, giving a draw if claimed.
Are you saying that if I check someone 3 times it is a draw? 3 times of what is enough?
I am not saing this, FIDE is.
FIDE rule 9.2 says "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) are considered 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 in this manner be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently."
This rule applies with or without the presence of check.
I'm sure you know this rule, Phlabibit, you are that experienced chess player.
09 Jun 07
Originally posted by FabianFnasI think his point was that it's not enough that it's a perpetual check, you also need to repeat the exact same position. Very often that is the case on every second move if you have a perpetual, but it doesn't have to be the case.
If three checks giving the same position three times, yes, that's an application of the threefold position repetition rule, giving a draw if claimed.
I am not saing this, FIDE is.
FIDE rule 9.2 says "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 repetit ...[text shortened]... of check.
I'm sure you know this rule, Phlabibit, you are that experienced chess player.
09 Jun 07
Originally posted by NordlysIf you by 'him' mean 'xxxxxxxx', then the answer to his question is - never. The computer never automatically says it is a draw game. One has to claim the draw.
I think his point was that it's not enough that it's a perpetual check, you also need to repeat the exact same position. Very often that is the case on every second move if you have a perpetual, but it doesn't have to be the case.
If you by 'him' mean 'Essex 3', then I have to give the same remark - never. You can check thousands of times without the computer automatically saying it is a draw game. One has to claim the draw.
If you by 'him' mean 'Phlabibit', when he asks: "Are you saying that if I check someone 3 times it is a draw?" then I have to give the answer to his question - no. One has to claim the draw.
But we are aware of the rules (perhaps not 'xxxxxxxx' and that's why he is asking. I hope you know the answer by now and all variations around it), we've played so much so this discussions is not about the rule itself, it's about to be absolutely right about the definitions of the terms. In the rules of FIDE there is nothing such as 'Perpetual Check' so there is no official definition of the term.
09 Jun 07
Originally posted by FabianFnasI did mean Phlabibit (I thought that was obvious), and I think his question was not so much a real question as a way to point out that your post was a bit unclear. And it didn't have anything to do with whether you have to claim the draw or not, but when you can claim a draw. You said: "But so much of perpetual, it isn't; three times is enough." Some people might misinterpret that as "if I have a perpetual check, I just have to repeat that three times, then I can claim a draw."
If you by 'him' mean 'Phlabibit', when he asks: "Are you saying that if I check someone 3 times it is a draw?" then I have to give the answer to his question - no. One has to claim the draw.
09 Jun 07
Originally posted by NordlysYou're right there.
I did mean Phlabibit (I thought that was obvious), and I think his question was not so much a real question as a way to point out that your post was a bit unclear. And it didn't have anything to do with whether you have to claim the draw or not, but when you can claim a draw. You said: "But so much of perpetual, it isn't; three times is enough." Some people ...[text shortened]... have a perpetual check, I just have to repeat that three times, then I can claim a draw."
If I was unclear I have to blame my lack of linguistic insight in the English language.