He's just a sore loser, or in this case, drawer. Don't mind him, you played well to get to that point. Unless you truely did cheat by using an engine, you have nothing to worry about.
repetition stalemate
Sort:
That's exactly what I told him, he's a sore loser( with tact of course )....it's a rule for a reason...
Jan 23, 2009
0
#4
I assume you meant perpetual check or a 3 fold repetition. :) Either way if you find a way to draw from a bad position then it is good to take the draw. :)
I find it curious what he expected you to do, should you move your pieces in a convenient manor so he can take them or checkmate your king? It's not like you were going to do something else, so he had to. He can always avoid the threefold repetition rule by picking a different line of attack, but he obviously knew that was his only way to win. It's not a good win if you can't checkmate the king unless your opponent blunders. I only wish sometimes the people these posts were about would explain their side so we could see what's going on inside the melon of theirs.
I looked at your game and you could have just mated him.
I'm not sure the phrase repetition stalemate makes any sense, but I like it.
Would this be "perpetual stale?"
Ok.....sorry to all...I don't know chess lingo very well......I've only been playing daily for a year or so....hence the naive question
hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
after 6. Kf5 black should have played 6. ....Rf6 , he could have either captured the white's queen, or got a stalemate inevitably!!
Jan 26, 2009
0
#10
yodyote1 wrote:
He should have won but lost. And he got angry which is all apart of chess. Stalemate is also a part of chess. If he were losing and found a chance he would do it too.
I recently took advantage of a repetition stalemate, instead of losing the game. my opponent said that I was a cheater, and was pretty adamant about it.......I'm looking for peoples thoughts on this decision of mine.
I honestly don't care.....there's always another game......but it got me curious, seeing that i'm fairly new to chess, and want to learn more...
sittingpawn wrote:
I find it curious what he expected you to do, should you move your pieces in a convenient manor so he can take them or checkmate your king? It's not like you were going to do something else, so he had to. He can always avoid the threefold repetition rule by picking a different line of attack, but he obviously knew that was his only way to win. It's not a good win if you can't checkmate the king unless your opponent blunders. I only wish sometimes the people these posts were about would explain their side so we could see what's going on inside the melon of theirs.
I wish the other partys would come in these threads too..
I told the other party that I was going to post this question.......and after I posted it, I told him again...... he knows.....
Nice draw. And good recognition. He made the mistake of putting the queen to close to your king
thats a draw good job=)
You had recognized it well and good job to you. I guess, it is alright not conceive when you only got a rook against a queen since you are new. I'd been told that when your rating is up there and had been playing awhile against someone who is highly rated that you should conceived a game when clearly you are losing the game, hence, your situation. They say it's a common courtesy.
Gwyllem wrote:
why doesn't the king take the rook?
Because then the black king has nowhere to move, resulting in an automatic draw.
(Granted, the result is a draw anyway...)
Ok does it claim the draw automatically? As it stands, i got drunk and blew the game up (was winning with just two gone, still had two pairs of rooks/bishops, only three taken in total to her half-dozen) and I am now looking to take advantage of that rule.
I look at it like this, you can simplify the game of chess to one sentance. "Make the best move at the best time" unfortunatly this sometimes leads to perpetual check or 3x repition. By no means do I think this should be the goal of any player, however a draw is about 1/2 a point better than a loss :). The person you were playing was just upset because they didn't close the deal. We all know it is easier to blame the other player than to look at what we could have done to change the outcome in our favor.
Remember this, don't make a bad move just to avoid repetition. I will go through perpetual check until my oponent gets annoyed and either makes a bad move or we draw. either way, if I feel I had the upper hand I count it as a win....that I just couldn't close the deal on :(
RookSlayer wrote:
You had recognized it well and good job to you. I guess, it is alright not conceive when you only got a rook against a queen since you are new. I'd been told that when your rating is up there and had been playing awhile against someone who is highly rated that you should conceived a game when clearly you are losing the game, hence, your situation. They say it's a common courtesy.
Forget courtesy. there is no such thing as a lost position (ok I am being dramatic here I know there a situations in which you cannot win, or draw, but they are few and far between. at higher levels you assume you opponent will make less mistakes, so conceding may seem a way to shorten the inevitable, but remember this; Even computer engines have rouble calculating all the possible lines in an end game, so a human opponent has even less chance of making the right move ALL the time. I have beaten my engine exactly one time and it was in an end game setting. Don't give up! make them beat you, or die trying!
I recently took advantage of a repetition stalemate, instead of losing the game. my opponent said that I was a cheater, and was pretty adamant about it.......I'm looking for peoples thoughts on this decision of mine.
I honestly don't care.....there's always another game......but it got me curious, seeing that i'm fairly new to chess, and want to learn more...