[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Perpetual check. Explanation of perpetual check with an animated diagram.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Doug Chatham wrote on 2006-08-02 UTCRico, If it's a draw, then neither player wins and neither player loses. In a tournament game (where a win gets 1 point and a loss gets 0 points), each player would get 1/2 a point for the draw. Jester wrote on 2006-08-02 UTCWell, if it's an aggressive player forcing the repetition draw, he wins. If the player is a passive player forcing the repetition draw, he loses. So who win if passive aggressive player when he forces loss? Rico wrote on 2006-08-02 UTCAverage ★★★who win if the aggressive player forces a repetition draw? Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2005-11-27 UTCSee the rules of chess: http://www.chessvariants.org/d.chess/chess.html Repetition of moves If the same position with the same player to move is repeated three times in the game, the player to move can claim a draw. (When the right to make a certain castling move is lost by one of the players between positions, then the positions are considered to be different. For the fine points of this rule, see the official rules of chess). Refer to section 10.10: http://www.chessvariants.org/fidelaws.html One case where the repetition of move occurs is when a player continues to give check forever. Michael wrote on 2005-11-27 UTCGood ★★★★I just have one question. Is this rule true? Is there really such a rule as perpetual check? I believe the answer to that goes towards 'no' and 'yes.' Let's look at the statistics. If a player keeps checking his opponent and eventually the same position comes up three times with the same person to move, the game can be declared a draw via Threefold Repetition. Let's look at another situation. A player keeps checking the other opponent over and over again, but yet the same position never occurs again. But don't forget the 50-move rule!!! So even though there might not be such a rule, you could just keep checking your opponent for 50 moves w/o him capturing any pieces or moving pawns! One more. Let's say you keep on checking your opponent but he can always move a pawn to get out of it. You keep checking your opponent w/ no escape but the same position never occurs. Who knows? Maybe the only way to let the game to come to an end would be perpetual check. So I guess it IS maybe true. But the truth is, I personally do not know if there IS really such a rule. Jimmy wrote on 2005-03-14 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Great pages, and, as a learning programming student myself, it's good to see programmers conversing and sharing good communication skills to one another, makes the field look that much more inviting. Thanks, Jimmy [email protected] David Paulowich wrote on 2004-08-27 UTCNeuroDoc is correct - perpetual check is 'chess slang', commonly used for a forced sequence of moves. Note for computer programmers: any time a position repeats five times in a game, it must be true that the same position with the same player to move has repeated at least three times. Just mentioned this in case a plain 'fivefold repetition rule' is easier to code. <p>In my database is the game [R. Pert - M. Franklin, 1996] in which both players have two rooks on the board. Black sets up a possible stalemate position on move 33 by advancing his passed Pawn to h3. All White needs to do is sacrifice both Rooks. After 21 consecutive Rook checks, they agreed to a draw. Of course, Black can always end the checks (and stalemate White) by capturing the last Rook. Doug Chatham wrote on 2004-07-18 UTCWith some exceptions, the answer is to start over with the pieces in their correct starting positions. (See Article 7.1(a) of the Laws of Chess at <a href='http://fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101'>http://fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101</a>.) Anonymous wrote on 2004-07-17 UTCExcellent ★★★★★WHAT SHOULD ONE DO WHEN ONE BEGINS WITH WRONG SETUP OF CHESS BOARD. [email protected] wrote on 2004-02-15 UTCLasker had Bird in perpetual check (abt 1890) for about 20-moves. Bird was one move to queen-ing a pawn but as long as lasker could check, Bird would not get the pawn in home. looks like to me that Bird simply ran out of time and the Lasker was declared the winner. This is about 50th or 51st game for Lasker. eridu wrote on 2004-01-27 UTCGood ★★★★NeuroDoc, if you can get check forever, then at least one of the following is true: <p>* You can get checkmate. (But in that case, why go for the draw?) <p>* You can force the same position to repeat three times within 50 moves, which gets you a draw. <p>* You can force 50 moves to happen without a capture or a pawn move, which gets you a draw. <p>If the group plays without an official 'perpetual check' move, sane players will agree to a draw in a perpetual check situation. <p>Incidentally, I got to this page by googling for 'perpetual check' while I was inflicting it on my Mac in Apple Chess. It appears both that Apple Chess does not recognize perpetual check and that you can get it to crash by triggering the 50-move rule. ;) In this situation, the computer had a queen and three pawns, and I had just a queen, with which I kept the computer in check without allowing it to block with a pawn or retreat behind the queen. I doubt I could have forced a draw by three repetitions; although I could force him to stay on one side of the board, the king had a lot of space to roam. NeuroDoc wrote on 2003-10-22 UTCPoor ★There is no such official rule as 'perpetual check.' The example given falls under rule 10.10, which states that a game is a draw if the same position is reached three times in a game, with the same player to move. This diagram certainly shows that the same position is reached three times in the game. Also, the position doesn't have to be occuring in a row, the same position can be separated by many moves. For example, a position occurs at move 25, then again at move 35 and then again at move 40. Hinemoa wrote on 2003-09-19 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Needed the rules for a friend, it helped me too. Everything I wanted to know plus more. Congratulations! Sameer wrote on 2003-09-15 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Excellent. Found site easily on google and found very good explanation of all the issues I was looking for! Craig wrote on 2003-08-27 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Yeah, this was pretty good. This site is extremely helpful. I searched for 'chess rules' on the yahoo site. It came up 2nd or 3rd. Good site. malika wrote on 2003-08-26 UTCExcellent ★★★★★It was totally great. Now im going to try to beat my dad! vachot wrote on 2003-03-24 UTCExcellent ★★★★★They play differently on Vachot Christian wrote on 2003-02-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Very good, i might have to steel that from u guys Mark wrote on 2003-01-16 UTCExcellent ★★★★★answered my question completely Fi Benson wrote on 2002-12-16 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Crystal clear visual explanation rrrw wrote on 2002-12-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Jolly good show Anonymous wrote on 2002-11-21 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I thought this page was great because I got to prove that my cousin was wrong. Anonymous wrote on 2002-06-27 UTCGood ★★★★I liked this page because it shows how the knight can keep on checking the king. 23 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.