Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 13 Aug '12 08:59
    by continuously checking your opponent,
  2. Standard member cadwah
    ¯\_(^.^)_/¯
    13 Aug '12 09:25
    Originally posted by tim88
    by continuously checking your opponent,
    Yes.

    I was going to leave it at that, but i'll expand on it. The only way to win a game is checkmate, sure people can resign if they feel that their position is hopeless or if they see checkmate coming through forced or unforced moves, but the only way to win is checkmate. Any legal moves that your opponent can play to prevent themselves getting beat are preferable to losing. I suppose it all boils down to the fact that believing or having the best position means nothing, you must prove that you have a winning position and the only way to do this is checkmate.
    Perpetual check is just as valid a draw as stalemate or the 50 move rule.
  3. 13 Aug '12 11:22
    Originally posted by cadwah
    Yes.

    I was going to leave it at that, but i'll expand on it. The only way to win a game is checkmate, sure people can resign if they feel that their position is hopeless or if they see checkmate coming through forced or unforced moves, but the only way to win is checkmate. Any legal moves that your opponent can play to prevent themselves getting beat are p ...[text shortened]... o this is checkmate.
    Perpetual check is just as valid a draw as stalemate or the 50 move rule.
    yeah that sounds fair enough, but on the other hand your opponent should also try and prevent this draw from happening I guess a lot of people would have split views on this
  4. 13 Aug '12 12:03
    Originally posted by tim88
    by continuously checking your opponent,
    Learn the rules already.

    Yes, it's fair to draw by perpetual check.
    Yes, it's fair to draw by threefold repetition.
    Yes, it's fair to draw by stalemate.
    Yes, it's fair to take a pawn en passant.
    Yes, it's fair to move your rook through "check" when castling.

    Learn the rules.

    Richard
  5. Subscriber C J Horse
    A stable personality
    13 Aug '12 12:22
    If your opponent can force a draw by repetition, you do NOT have a winning position. It doesn't matter how far ahead you are on material.
  6. 13 Aug '12 12:49
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    Learn the rules already.

    Yes, it's fair to draw by perpetual check.
    Yes, it's fair to draw by threefold repetition.
    Yes, it's fair to draw by stalemate.
    Yes, it's fair to take a pawn en passant.
    Yes, it's fair to move your rook through "check" when castling.

    Learn the rules.

    Richard
    I think i just did
  7. 13 Aug '12 12:51
    Originally posted by C J Horse
    If your opponent can force a draw by repetition, you do NOT have a winning position. It doesn't matter how far ahead you are on material.
    thanks
  8. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    13 Aug '12 15:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by tim88
    by continuously checking your opponent,
    Hi Tim,

    I think people may not be giving your question a fair hearing due to semantics.

    We all know that a forced draw is legal, but that is not what you are asking. If I understand you correctly, your question can be restated to ask "Are the rules allowing a defender to force a draw a fair result for a game?"

    I think this is a fair question, because people new to the game struggle with the concept, which indicates it is not a "natural" idea intuitive to most people.

    Very often newer players will have a clearly better game (usually a material advantage), and they feel like they deserve to win.

    It is only later as they develop that they learn than all the intermediate steps in a game have only subjective value, and the objective of checkmating the king is the only absolute in determining the game result (clock notwithstanding).

    Back in the 1980's my college roommate and I (he's bralen here on the site) were playing a game as newbies where I had king and two knights to his lone king. Not realizing it was a draw, he left the game and told me he would resign if I could find a mate. I spent almost an hour before I gave up, and only learned later it was a draw. It was an epiphany for me, and a valuable lesson.

    To answer your question: Yes, I think it is fair, because I think a true "win" must overcome every obstacle my opponent can create. It is closely connected to my belief that wins from creative play mean more to me than when my opponent blunders, and I just happen to be the guy across the board at the time!
  9. 13 Aug '12 17:12
  10. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    13 Aug '12 17:32
    Originally posted by Fat Lady
    [pgn]
    [Result "1-0"]
    [FEN "8/5K1k/8/4N3/4N3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
    [SetUp "1"]

    {--------------
    . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . K . k
    . . . . . . . .
    . . . . N . . .
    . . . . N . . .
    . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . .
    white to play
    --------------}
    1. Ng5+ Kh8 2. Ng6#
    [/pgn]
    Perhaps I should have included the words ...a draw with best play, as it can't be forced.😕
  11. 13 Aug '12 17:47
    The rule is same for everyone and it might benefit an individual in one game and cause him to not win another. Why would it not be fair?
  12. Subscriber thaughbaer
    Duckfinder General
    13 Aug '12 18:40
    Greenpawn did a blog on this... some players will actually give up the win in favour of a perpetual.. I'd say that's fair.

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/blog/blogread.php?blogpostid=42
  13. 13 Aug '12 20:18 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    Hi Tim,
    I think people may not be giving your question a fair hearing due to semantics.

    We all know that a forced draw is legal, but that is not what you are asking. If I understand you correctly, your question can be restated to ask "Are the rules allowing a defender to force a draw a fair result for a game?" ...
    If tim88 really meant (he might have, but I cannot be certain) what you assume
    he did, then he should have expressed his question in words similar to those
    that you have used. But he chose to write his question differently, and I don't
    think that it's fair to blame other people for replying to his question as it was
    written rather than assuming that he really meant something else. It was
    generous and thoughtful of you, however, to suggest another interpretation
    of his original question.

    Is something necessarily fair simply because it's part of the rules?
    The recent 'super-GM' tournament in Biel used 3-1-0 scoring, which every
    player knew in advance. Going into the last round, Wang Hao (who had led for
    most of the tournament) was tied with Anish Giri, 1 point behind Magnus Carlsen.
    Given the scoring, both Wang Hao and Anish Giri had more incentive to play all-out
    for a win against other. Wang Hao won that game and so overtook Carlsen, who
    only drew his game against Etienne Bacrot. So the tournament's winner was
    Wang Hao +6 =1 -3 (19 points) ahead of Magnus Carlsen +4 =6 =0 (18 points),
    while traditional scoring would have placed Carlsen (7) ahead of Wang Hao (6.5).
    Some people have complained that this outcome's 'unfair' because 1) they are
    opposed in principle to 3-1-0 scoring or 2) they like Magnus Carlsen more than
    they like Wang Hao. While I prefer traditional scoring, I have to say that 3-1-0
    scoring should encourage players to take more risks in order to play for wins.
    Going into the last round, Magnus Carlsen knew that he had to win his game
    in order to guarantee winning the tournament, and he was unable to do that.
    The 3-1-0 scoring was designed to reward a player for winning many games,
    and that's what it did in this case.
  14. 14 Aug '12 02:39
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    If tim88 really meant (he might have, but I cannot be certain) what you assume
    he did, then he should have expressed his question in words similar to those
    that you have used. But he chose to write his question differently, and I don't
    think that it's fair to blame other people for replying to his question as it was
    written rather than assuming that h ...[text shortened]... igned to reward a player for winning many games,
    and that's what it did in this case.
    Just replying to the Biel reference. I think the tournament placings are perfectly fair as all were aware of the rules before played started. Whether 3 points for a win actually encourages people to "go for it" is debatable in my opinion though ... I personally think it was rather more the case of the style/mentality of the players the organisers invited.
    What I do feel is very wrong though is when the rating performances don't marry with the scores. This to me seems a fundamental flaw with 3 points for a win system.
  15. 14 Aug '12 03:44 / 1 edit