refusing to let the game end

refusing to let the game end

Only Chess

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

l

Joined
16 Sep 06
Moves
771
15 Dec 06

i've only been playing here for a few months (i used to play on gameknot), and one of the things i've noticed is that the most common strategem here on this site (it's happened in 20% of my games) is that when it's clear you can no longer win you just perpetually put the player who is about to win in check so taht they may not deliver the final blow. now, i know there's the loophole about making the same move three times in a row (of course, going for that when you've really lost is completely unsportsmanly), but this is taking place in situation where the other player can't force the same move over and over. it's just indefinate stalling.

is there some way i can get redhotpawn to interfere? i have a game that's gone on fifteen extra moves of them putting me in check with the queen, i move out of check they move queen to put me in check. this is not a strategy because there is no mate for them to reach, they just keep moving the same piece back and forth back and forth back and forth to delay their losing of the game praying on reaching a stalemate.

this kind of strategy should be prohibited. it doesn't seem to be, but i wanted everyone else's thoughts on it or suggestions. as much as i see it, i can't be the only one having it happen to them.

when i lose a game i accept my loss by either resigning or trying for a miracle win. these players aren't trying for a miracle win, they're just stretching the game out indefinatley in hopes of hitting a loophole that might let them feel like they didn't lose a match they did.

any thoughts?

z

127.0.0.1

Joined
27 Oct 05
Moves
158564
15 Dec 06

If they cannot mate you, and they cannot force a perpetual (same situation 3 times), then clearly you have a way to avoid check. Make it happen.

A

Joined
28 Nov 06
Moves
4374
15 Dec 06

Even though they can't seem to force a 3rd repetition, if he can force perpetual check then it is a draw.

z

127.0.0.1

Joined
27 Oct 05
Moves
158564
15 Dec 06

Originally posted by lightfallsup
i've only been playing here for a few months (i used to play on gameknot), and one of the things i've noticed is that the most common strategem here on this site (it's happened in 20% of my games) is that when it's clear you can no longer win you just perpetually put the player who is about to win in check so taht they may not deliver the final blow. n ...[text shortened]... that might let them feel like they didn't lose a match they did.

any thoughts?
Ahha. There is a flaw in your understanding..

"i know there's the loophole about making the same move three times in a row (of course, going for that when you've really lost is completely unsportsmanly)"

First off, attempting to salvange a lost game by drawing is unsportsmanlike? If I am down 8-0 in a game of baseball, should I just resign? That said, down a queen I usually resign, down 1 minor piece, it depends on if I have counterplay.

Finally the real point... It is not the same move three times in a row. It is the same position on the board (same castling rights, same person to move) three times at ANY point in the game, they do not have to be back to back (to back).

SS

Joined
15 Aug 05
Moves
96595
15 Dec 06
5 edits

z

127.0.0.1

Joined
27 Oct 05
Moves
158564
15 Dec 06

The post that was quoted here has been removed
The only reason perpetual is a draw is because eventually you will cause that third repition, or you will reach the 50 move rule (no pawn moves or pieces captured in the last 50 moves) both of which force a draw.

A

Joined
28 Nov 06
Moves
4374
15 Dec 06

I can appreciate your frustration, but this is all legal AND ethical. If the situation were reversed and you had the opportunity to draw instead of losing, would you not take it? It happens all the time among any chessplayers worth their salt: They find themselves in a bad position, stop playing for the win, and look for the draw, AND they should be commended when they find it.

S

Joined
14 Jul 06
Moves
20541
15 Dec 06

What's more annoying is when you're beating someone up badly & they take the absolute maximum to make any move whatsoever.
Say you're a whole piece up & about to enter the endgame & they push their king around after 3 days between moves.
No doubt hoping you'll resign the game in disgust!
😠

m

Joined
28 Jun 05
Moves
20947
15 Dec 06

The game is over when you checkmate your opponent. I see nothing wrong with putting someone in check continually (which would eventualy repeat the position 3 times or reach the 50 move games). I have forced draws and drawn games that way.

F

Joined
11 Nov 05
Moves
43938
15 Dec 06

I think lightfallsups opponent is a clever player who, in a inferior position, can force a draw.
I've done that a few times and my opponents have also manage to make a draw by 3rd position repetition rule. Not a bit unsporty, just clever.

The rules are clear. By whining over players using this rule is, however, not a very good sportmanship.

...if you ask me...

d

Joined
27 Oct 05
Moves
72627
15 Dec 06

I just did that to a player far superior to me.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/playchess.php?gameid=2875833

O

Joined
11 Sep 06
Moves
17376
15 Dec 06
2 edits

Originally posted by lightfallsup
i've only been playing here for a few months (i used to play on gameknot), and one of the things i've noticed is that the most common strategem here on this site (it's happened in 20% of my games) is that when it's clear you can no longer win you just perpetually put the player who is about to win in check so taht they may not deliver the final blow. n that might let them feel like they didn't lose a match they did.

any thoughts?
What you call loopholes, the rest of us call "rules of chess that have been established for over a century." What you call "a game they really lost," the rest of us call a "draw."

These are not strategies or tactics that should be prohibited, nor are they loopholes. The rule of triple repetition is not "unsportsmanlike," because if the best move is a move that stops you from winning, then that's what your opponent should play! These rules are, in fact, very important parts of chess.

Edit: While we're not supposed to talk about games in progress, looking over your games...well, you know, there are plenty of times where you can prevent your opponent from just checking you again and again and win the game a little later.

N

The sky

Joined
05 Apr 05
Moves
10385
16 Dec 06

Originally posted by lightfallsup
i've only been playing here for a few months (i used to play on gameknot), and one of the things i've noticed is that the most common strategem here on this site (it's happened in 20% of my games) is that when it's clear you can no longer win you just perpetually put the player who is about to win in check so taht they may not deliver the final blow.
If it happens to you in 20% of your games, you must be doing something wrong. Your opponent can't do that to you if you don't let xym.

Devout Agnostic.

DZ-015

Joined
12 Oct 05
Moves
42584
16 Dec 06

Originally posted by lightfallsup
i've only been playing here for a few months (i used to play on gameknot), and one of the things i've noticed is that the most common strategem here on this site (it's happened in 20% of my games) is that when it's clear you can no longer win you just perpetually put the player who is about to win in check so taht they may not deliver the final blow. n ...[text shortened]... that might let them feel like they didn't lose a match they did.

any thoughts?
They forced a draw and you are complaining, yes ?

Do they have draws on gameknot ?

D
Losing the Thread

Quarantined World

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
87415
16 Dec 06

Originally posted by dmnelson84
I just did that to a player far superior to me.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/playchess.php?gameid=2875833
To put in links to a game type (without the spaces): [ gid ] 2875833 [ / gid ] and you will get Game 2875833. Nice draw btw - I imagine your opponent was quite cross about that 😉