Originally posted by mnelsonEveryone agreed????? HaHaHaHaHaHa
I started a thread on how the repetitive move type draw is CRAP, as seen here:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=4144913
...and everyone agreed. What happened to the thread? It was a great topic.
Looks like the thread got the fate that it deserved. 😛
Originally posted by mnelsonPerpetual Check is a common way to draw and hold a position that would otherwise be losing. Often the threat of perpetual prevents one side from playing an otherwise winning move. In your case, 23. ...Bxf1 does not win the exchange because of the perpetual, so if you thought you were winning at that point, it should be annotated 23. ... Bxf1?
I started a thread on how the repetitive move type draw is CRAP, as seen here:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=4144913
...and everyone agreed. What happened to the thread? It was a great topic.
It's actually one of the things I keep in my mental checklist when pursuing a mating attack. There are also perpetuals in certain opening lines that keep one side from being crushed, so if White wants to win, they have to find another way.
Here is a well known one from the Pirc, that has been replayed many times after Seriwan found it in the 80s. If Black doesn't take the perpetual, White has a crushing position.
Game 4125326
- Joined
- 22 Mar 07
- Moves
- 49428
It's lame! It goes against the strategic brilliance that is chess.
It's like a soccer game that ends in 0-0 tie, or a race that finishes under a caution flag. WTF??
It's far less elegant than the stalemate. Some stalemates are 10x more clever than many checkmates.
I think that the person that forces the perpetual check should lose -- plain and simple. It's an unsportman-like ending.
Originally posted by mnelsonWhat's lame about getting a draw from a losing position? You really weren't winning after permitting the check.
It's lame! It goes against the strategic brilliance that is chess.
It's like a soccer game that ends in 0-0 tie, or a race that finishes under a caution flag. WTF??
It's far less elegant than the stalemate. Some stalemates are 10x more clever than many checkmates.
I think that the person that forces the perpetual check should lose -- plain and simple. It's an unsportman-like ending.
Originally posted by mnelsonCleverness is often required for perpetual check, too. For example, in one of my own games, I was down a piece but sacked a rook in order to get perpetual check. Sometimes there can even be 3, 4, 5, perpetual check combinations and in some grandmaster games more than 5 moves.
It's lame! It goes against the strategic brilliance that is chess.
It's like a soccer game that ends in 0-0 tie, or a race that finishes under a caution flag. WTF??
It's far less elegant than the stalemate. Some stalemates are 10x more clever than many checkmates.
I think that the person that forces the perpetual check should lose -- plain and simple. It's an unsportman-like ending.
Why are you people treating mnelson seriously? He obviously is either hacked off that he didn't win and is just whining, or he just wants to start another "whiner" thread that will go for over 100 posts to boost his ego. (Whiner threads seem popular at the moment.)
HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!
Let me repeat my post from the deleted thread:
>The math is simple.
1/2 > 0
Sometimes you get in trouble across the board and there is no way you can win. The rules of chess provide some methods that you still won't lose in that situation. You have to give up hope of winning, but in return you gain 1/2 point for the draw. It is also a caution for the player in the superior position: "win this won game or you lose 1/2 point!"
Originally posted by mnelsonI'm quite sure that you would take it if it was there in a serious game. and how is it unsportsmanlike if it is part of the rules.
It's lame! It goes against the strategic brilliance that is chess.
It's like a soccer game that ends in 0-0 tie, or a race that finishes under a caution flag. WTF??
It's far less elegant than the stalemate. Some stalemates are 10x more clever than many checkmates.
I think that the person that forces the perpetual check should lose -- plain and simple. It's an unsportman-like ending.
Originally posted by mnelsonIf you don't like the rules, then just give up our version, and invent your own. I'm sure yours will have no problem lasting through a thousand years.
I started a thread on how the repetitive move type draw is CRAP, as seen here:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=4144913
...and everyone agreed. What happened to the thread? It was a great topic.