forced draw is it fair

by continuously checking your opponent,

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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!

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.😕

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?

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

The post that was quoted here has been removed

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.