Do you think prepetual check/three fold repetition is honorable?

I don't understand how one can even begin to think that any act(that is logically within the rules)  stopping your opponent winning  could be construde as cheap/unfair/unsportsmanlike.

 Imagine what the rules of chess would look like if you added in a clause that said "playing for the draw is prohibited" which is pretty much what your asking us to say we agree with.

 In my opinion the rule saying these situations result in a draw doesn't even need to exist... if some one has put me into a situation where I am forced to repeat the same two moves then I'm going to figure out pretty fast that the game is a draw.   Outside of the perp check if both players are unwilling to move outside of their current positions then the game is a draw.  It just makes sense.  Anything else is illogical and would take the perfect logical game which is chess and cheapen it. 

Apologies for the rant.

YES!!!

I'm sorry for everyone who may find this offensive, but I agree that Loomis has made enough good points to actually be called the only voice of reason in this thread.

Keeping an opponent from winning an advantageous position is a perfectly viable option in chess. After all, actually winning a good game requires skill and precision, and if you can't provide that, you shouldn't have the full point. It's not the rules' fault  if a game is drawn by a perpetual, because if you would abolish the threefold repitition rule, that would just mean one player keeps checking his opponent until one of them gets up and walks away in disgust.

There are much cheaper ways to end a game early on, the most common one being that of two players agreeing on the draw before even 20 moves are played. People have tried to formulate rules against this in tournaments, but so far they have not been overly successful. 

I see no problem with the repetition rule.  In fact it makes the game more interesting, and gives the player with less material a chance to at least draw.  Same goes for the stale-mate.

 I don't see it as a problem at all.  In fact if you are able to pull off a perpetual check, it means your opponent doesn't deserve to win, because he failed to prevent it from happening.

loomis,

Your game is dishonorable as you clearly have a lost position and denied the superior player his right to victory. Perpetual check is a tool for lowly weasels to deny that their chess sucks. If you were truly honorable, you would resign or take the beating that is coming to you like a man. 

 I didn't realize you were joking until this post.  That's a good one: coming in here pretending to agree with such a crackpot notion.  I'm sure you know this already, but (if you insist on staying in character-- which would be great-- you should probably call me an idiot or something for effect) it's usually beginners who are unable to prevent perpetual checks that get mad about the rule.  They get so frustrated that they need to, I don't know... start a forum topic or something.  Once a player gains the ability to see more than two moves ahead, he usually also gains an appreciation for the added complexity given the game by such a rule.

 I think you meant to refer to the apparently superior player who turned out to be less good than he imagined. It's a strange sense of the word "superior" to mean someone who blunders away a clearly winning position by letting his opponent set up a perpetual check.

If I'm down massive material and you end up with a half-point instead of the full point because I forced a draw, which of us would be the lowly weasel whose chess sucks? The rules are clear and known to the players before the game begins. Just like you have to keep the "sneaky" back-rank mate in mind when launching your overwhelming attack, you have to keep stalemate or any other forced draw in mind as well. If someone spots you a queen and a rook, and you get a draw, who is the better player?

I'm not ashamed to admit my chess sucks. I hope it someday gets good enough that I can force a draw from a clearly losing position. If I ever get that good, the half points that I "steal" from "superior" players will be mighty nice. 

 Exactly. Imagine a football team down by 3 points, in field goal range, with 2 seconds left in the game. Is it dishonorable for them to kick the field goal? Or should they just give up and "take the beating that is coming" like a man, as one of our friends here has (jokingly, I think) suggested?

As a frequently sarcastic person, I have learned to my cost that sarcasm is sometimes hard to detect in a post. No one can see the wry smile I have while typing, or hear the sarcasm drip from my voice. 

I don't think any gameplay tactic in chess can be considered "dishonorable". Your demeanor and sportsmanship determine how others view you as a person. On the gameboard you should be ruthless and seek every advantage you can within the rules.

What perpetual check means is that your opponent can not defend his king. Why penalize yourself for that by taking a loss? If your opponent seems to have a positional or matetrial advantage, but can not get his king out of check, it's obviously not a very strong position. Even though you can't checkmate, his attack can not continue. The result is a draw.

erm... no...  Besides, perpetual check is only a specific threefold repetition.  In other cases either player has the chance to make an unfavourable move to break the repetition.  If the 'winning' player decides he doesnt want to do this because he will lose, then clearly he wasnt actually winning at all.  In the case of the perpetual check.  Nothing is hidden.  If the player doesnt like the perpetual check he can feel free to avoid it.  In Loomis' game his opponent felt he was winning and avoided the checks and lost.  Clearly his winning position was merely an illusion, and the position was drawn. 

It takes 2 to play chess.  If you get done by a perpetual check it's because you allowed it, either by a blunder, or because you didnt actually have a better move.  If you didnt have a better move then you werent winning at all.  You need to remember there are 2 players in the game, both with kings that need protecting.  You seem to think you can just leave yours lying around and shouldnt need to answer checks, while taking all the time in the world to line up on the opposing king. 

What it all boils down to is: The superior player demonstrates his superiority by actually winning his games. A player not winning is not superior to his opponent. Full stop.

This reminds me a bit of all those unfortunate guys you can meet at any given chess tournament who can't stop lamenting that they had a winning position in the last game, but, alas, mucked it up and lost, being denied their natural right to win the winning position. Chess games are not won by the player who has an advantage at some stage (although I am ready to admit obtaining an advantage is an achievement in the first place), but by the player who manages to calculate more precisely in the decisive stage(s) of the game. Such are the laws of Caissa, and no whining is ever going to change them.

You can't have a game like chess without some sort of rule regarding perpetual repetition of positions. Without this rule, it would be possible for games to go into an infinite loop. As has been pointed out, making a poor move to avoid the perpetual check puts you into a potentially losing position. Without some sort of repetition rule, you have to wait for one player to starve to death, or decide to take a chance at making a bad move to get out of the repetition of position.

I wonder how many OTB games have been forfeited due to a player's death . . .

i imagine it has happened here at chess.com a few times at least.

Matalino, I salute your attitude of chivalry! This is another very good point nobody has mentioned  before in this thread.

My applauses! 

 You choose a poor example with football. In football the game continues until a winner is decided. There are no draws. Eliminating most of the conditions that are considered a draw and giving the win to one player or the other would simplify the game of chess immensely. In a real battle, if I bring 50,000 men to the field and you bring 50,000 men to the field and you make a tactical error resulting in the loss of 30,000 of your men, how do you figure you deserve a draw?

 I never said I was against all draws. Some are unavoidable like bare king against bare king. In those two particular games you pointed out one was clearly deadlocked with no chance of either side breaking through and mounting an attack. We could have moved pieces around behind the pawn line until the 50 move rule kicked in and it would have been a draw regardless. Neither one of us felt like playing it out on the off chance someone might do something stupid and open things up.Besides, I was feeling generous that game and he played well enough that I thought he deserved at least a draw, so I gave it to him. I lost rating points by giving that draw so it's not like I stood to gain anything from it. The second game, I didn't feel like playing out and the draw was offered to me by the other player so I accepted it so I could concentrate on the 10 other games I had open at the time. Not all draws are unavoidable, but many are and can and should be decided in favor of one player or the other. 

In this case I think it would be safe to modify the three fold rule to state that after you repeat the position three times, you must move something that does not result in a further repetition of the position or you forfeit the game. 

 Granted, football may not have been the best example. How about hockey? Soccer? Draws are allowed in those sports. The point is that in most sports, if a team is losing for the whole game and then comes back to tie it in the last seconds, it's normally considered an exciting game, heroic comeback, etc. In chess, where draws are part of the game, a player who is losing and comes back to gain a draw is a player who has played correctly - that isn't dishonorable by any means. If you want to compare chess to warfare, a general who loses more men than the other side but nevertheless prevents his enemy from obtaining his objectives has indeed earned a draw. If you want a simpler version of chess, why not play checkers instead?