1 edit
@drewnogal saidIf you can achieve it you are not destined to lose. So: Go for it!
Is it wrong to used this tactic to claim a draw in a game I’m destined to lose?
@ponderable saidSeems a bit of a dirty trick but .... ha! , something you learn to recognise once a player has done it to you š
If you can achieve it you are not destined to lose. So: Go for it!
@drewnogal saidWell if I have a won game I should be able to perform the win. If I do repaet the Position it is a sign that I have no idea how to win the game. (I did draw games a skilled Player would have won)
Seems a bit of a dirty trick but .... ha! , something you learn to recognise once a player has done it to you š
@drewnogal saidNo, so do it!
Is it wrong to used this tactic to claim a draw in a game I’m destined to lose?
DO IT!
@drewnogal saidAbsolutely not..
Is it wrong to used this tactic to claim a draw in a game I’m destined to lose?
I did this in a perpetual check situation just this afternoon after offering my opponenmt a draw which he declined
@drewnogal saidIf one fails to protect their own King from endless checks, they can't really say they've won.
Is it wrong to used this tactic to claim a draw in a game I’m destined to lose?
Basically, I agree with all the other posters. Bailing out of a bad position with perpetual check is a known and accepted tactic in chess. There is nothing "dirty" about it.
@drewnogal saidIt is as dirty a trick as castling and en passant!
Seems a bit of a dirty trick but .... ha! ,
@bigdoggproblem saidSecond that. It's within the rules. A loss (personally) is to be avoided. If you can't see progress, call it a day.
If one fails to protect their own King from endless checks, they can't really say they've won.
Basically, I agree with all the other posters. Bailing out of a bad position with perpetual check is a known and accepted tactic in chess. There is nothing "dirty" about it.
I see perpetual check mentioned, I cover this briefly in the latest bloggy thing.
Although everyone uses this term (me all the time) there is no such thing as
'perpetual check' in the FIDE law book. It is covered by the three fold rep rule.
Having a seperate rule/law for perpetual check is not required.
(but that will not stop us from perpetually using it.)
@wolfgang59 saidWhen I learned how to play chess I wasn't told of this special move, en passant, at first. When it actually was used in a game, I screamed foul play at my opponent (my younger sister) and ran to my mother and cried my eyes out. Till this day this story is shared at family meetings. My sister still easily beats me at chess.
It is as dirty a trick as castling and en passant!
- Joined
- 02 Jan 07
- Moves
- 75315
It's repetition of the same position 3 times AND the same person to move. Surprisingly something I learned only a couple of months ago. I found out in a game on this site and the site refused to accept the draw by repetition. Luckily it was not in a competition or worse against a sibling/child - being on the wrong side of a decision by an arbiter or mum/wife. š
@drewnogal saidNot a dirty trick. The Swindle is an Art Form.
Seems a bit of a dirty trick but .... ha! , something you learn to recognise once a player has done it to you š
That said, a repetition is not even a real swindle unless it comes an a very unexpected manner. A person who is otherwise losing will always look for drawing opportunities, and a repetition is an obvious method.
A good attacker should be on the lookout for it, and if they missed it, they don't deserve to win, and you shouldn't let them get away with it. Especially in this format!
1 edit
@bigdoggproblem saidI should have read this before posting. BDP always beats me to the punch!
If one fails to protect their own King from endless checks, they can't really say they've won.
Basically, I agree with all the other posters. Bailing out of a bad position with perpetual check is a known and accepted tactic in chess. There is nothing "dirty" about it.