Talk:Perpetual check/Archive 1

Archive 1

old talk

I must have lost a point somehere, but isn't the knight on g5 ? How can it jump to g4 ? Is there aomething wrong somewhere ? (if what's wrong is in my head, I'd be glad to know what... ^^;; )

someone changed the diagram [1] Arvindn 19:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

historical perpetual-check rule

I have been Googling for a while and haven't found anything saying that "perpetual check used to be in the laws of chess". The best I could find was a mention by Staunton that it is a special case of the threefold repetition rule (which is the same status perpetual check has now - a tactic, not an independent drawing method). However, I haven't found a citable source saying there was never such a rule (just a lot of forum posts). I don't discount that whoever said there used to be a perpetual-check rule might have had some basis for saying that, so I am asking for a source citation.JoeJust 21:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Official Chess Rulebook by Kenneth Harkness, 1970, page 46, says

...commonly known as the draw "by repetition of moves." It includes perpetual check

but it doesn't specifically list perpetual check. However, the way it is worded seems to imply that there had been a perpetual check rule. I'll look for older rulebooks. Bubba73 (talk), 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I finally found a book old enough to have the perpetual check rule - a 1954 Reinfeld book. Citation added to article. Bubba73 (talk), 00:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional information: on a chess newsgroup, someone said that the 1951 edition of "The Offical Blue Book and Encyclopedia of Chess" by Kenneth Harkness, page 51 states

the old rule covering draw by perpetual check has been abandoned. A player who can subject his opponent's King to an endless series of checks can force a third repetition of the position and claim the draw.

. However, I don't have a copy of that book to confirm it.

Also, the 1940 book How to play Chess Endings by Eugene Znosko-Borovsky, page 259 says "Thanks to perpetual check, Black succeeds in drawing the game." I think there is ample evidence that perpetual check was once a rule. Bubba73 (talk), 14:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't set much store on the Reinfeld quote. Explanations of the rules of chess outside chess rulebooks are often inaccurate in this kind of subtle detail. The Znosko-Borovsky quote has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether perpetual check was ever a rule. For example, the same book probably says something like, Because he reaches a Philidor position, Black succeeds in drawing the game. But nobody would assume that this means that there is (or used to be) a rule that says that, if a Philidor position is reached, the game is automatically drawn. Dricherby 13:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll rephrase it slightly. But it is a verfyable statement from a WP:RS. Bubba73 (talk), 15:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've ordered a copy of Kenneth Harkness's 1967 rulebook to see what it says. And note that above, someone told me that his 1951 rulebook says

the old rule covering draw by perpetual check has been abandoned. A player who can subject his opponent's King to an endless series of checks can force a third repetition of the position and claim the draw.

. Bubba73 (talk), 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Now there is also the reference from Staunton. That sufficies for references. Bubba73 (talk), 14:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear thge justification for removing the rule. I suspect that someone on the rules commitee raised the question of "How can one prove that something is 'endless' in a finite period of time?" It may be obvious to anyone and everyone, but proven? Not in the strict mathematical or logical sense. So, they let it go, as there was no practical effect: the draw would eventually be confirmed by one of the other rules. WHPratt (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you must be right about that. In some cases perpetual check is obvious - in others it isn't so clear and there could potentially be a way out. The objective threefold and fifty-move rules will eventually be used, or a draw by agreement. I think that the FIDE rules committee wanted to make everything objective - no judging necessary. I think this applied to when a player's time runs out too. In FIDE rules, if one player's time runs out, the other must possibly be able to checkmate in order to win. In the case of Monica Socko it got down to K&N vs. K&N when one person's time expired. Checkmate is possible but the opponent has to help! They initially ruled a draw, but by the rules it was changed to a win. But no judgment is needed. Instead, the USCF has the "insufficient losing chances" rule, which makes more sense - except that it requires a judgement. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hamppe-Meitner

The article gives a slightly erroneous impression about this game, actually White's best outcome is a draw following 12.Kxc5 (moves following that other than those actually played lead to material disadvantage [13.Qg4?] or mate [14.Be8?? etc.]). As written in the article and in the caption for the position it seems to be implied that Black just manages to salvage a draw after White's 16th move. Mallocks 15:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That was added by user:Krakatoa on Oct 28, 2006. Bubba73 (talk), 19:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've toned down the sheer amount of excited commenting but I'm still dubious as to whether the game should be included at all. Certainly it's beautifully played but the perpetual check at the end is just about the least exciting bit about it, so I question the particular relevence. Mallocks 11:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does illustrate a perpetual check, so I'm in favor of keeping it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to clear it up. Mallocks 17:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples

The example pic with the queen is wrong. The black king can block with a pawn move to G6, stopping perpetual check. The pic needs to be altered/removed/replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.178.155 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. 160.39.226.24 (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

first example

Moved from the article page: "This is for anyone who looks at this page, but if I'm not mistaken, when the Queen moves to F5, the pawn at G7 can just move to G6, blocking the Queen and actually preventing perpetual check. Would anyone like to provide a better example of perpetual check? "

Black does move the pawn to g6 on his fourth move to stop the checks, but then the white queen captures the pawn on f7 with check, perpetual check. Perhaps the example should show the pawn already on g6. Bubba73 (talk), 20:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unzicker versus Averbakh

h in step 3 should be p for pawn--L

Nope. "P" for pawn is not used in algebraic notation; specifying the starting file as done here is the correct way to notate a pawn capture. Double sharp (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)