Ah yes so honorable checking over and over again
@TheLyinKing said in ##48, 51:
> Well I didn't link the game so it's hard to debate. Most ppl here think the opponent did a normal 3 fold, and that's just not it.
> Ah yes so honorable checking over and over again
I had looked at the game and I have looked at it again. It is not that your feelings are not understandable. You'd just want to try to lose them.
In this game you played on a lost position, as you should in blitz, until you got a won position. You queened. You allowed your opponent to queen, queening for a second time next move yourself. Your opponent showed good instinctive skills checking you in a 1 against 2 queens endgame. You played it safe, and were it not for the threefold rule, without a doubt you would have found a way to block these checks for good and mate or exchange queens and win.
The threefold rule demands, especially from the leading player, to keep the game in constant progress. Perpetuation is granted, but only once for any given position (as the second perpetuation is a threefold). In chess, both players have the duty to develop the game, but if one player is trailing, she or he will not mind drawing, and the responsibility to keep track of the threefold dangers is now all with the leading side. That is realizing a repetition and taking another direction AND not coming back to the position from any other angle later. It's hard. Therefore, it is a dangerous luxury to even once repeat moves. It may win time on the clock, it may allow for further orientation during the repetition- or it may just be the best move- but there's also a chance to accidentally return to this position from somewhere else for a threefold, so that the strategy would turn out wrong.
The trailing side has to try to make it hard for the leading side to win, denying them progress. If the leading helplessly repeat, success is close for the trailing. It is comparable to the 50 move rule and stalemate: You can't expect your opponent to walk into check, you have to mate him, you can't let your opponent wait for 100 moves until you eventually find the trick, you have to speed up, and you can't indulge in or be oblivious of repetitions of positions, you have to know your way or try to find your way with only so much stalling.
The trailing side has to look for stalemates, run from knight&bishop for more than 50 moves and make progress difficult and repetitions likely. All this is in order to demand more quality from the players. Both sides have to give their best even if a game is objectively won and lost for quite a while.
> Well I didn't link the game so it's hard to debate. Most ppl here think the opponent did a normal 3 fold, and that's just not it.
> Ah yes so honorable checking over and over again
I had looked at the game and I have looked at it again. It is not that your feelings are not understandable. You'd just want to try to lose them.
In this game you played on a lost position, as you should in blitz, until you got a won position. You queened. You allowed your opponent to queen, queening for a second time next move yourself. Your opponent showed good instinctive skills checking you in a 1 against 2 queens endgame. You played it safe, and were it not for the threefold rule, without a doubt you would have found a way to block these checks for good and mate or exchange queens and win.
The threefold rule demands, especially from the leading player, to keep the game in constant progress. Perpetuation is granted, but only once for any given position (as the second perpetuation is a threefold). In chess, both players have the duty to develop the game, but if one player is trailing, she or he will not mind drawing, and the responsibility to keep track of the threefold dangers is now all with the leading side. That is realizing a repetition and taking another direction AND not coming back to the position from any other angle later. It's hard. Therefore, it is a dangerous luxury to even once repeat moves. It may win time on the clock, it may allow for further orientation during the repetition- or it may just be the best move- but there's also a chance to accidentally return to this position from somewhere else for a threefold, so that the strategy would turn out wrong.
The trailing side has to try to make it hard for the leading side to win, denying them progress. If the leading helplessly repeat, success is close for the trailing. It is comparable to the 50 move rule and stalemate: You can't expect your opponent to walk into check, you have to mate him, you can't let your opponent wait for 100 moves until you eventually find the trick, you have to speed up, and you can't indulge in or be oblivious of repetitions of positions, you have to know your way or try to find your way with only so much stalling.
The trailing side has to look for stalemates, run from knight&bishop for more than 50 moves and make progress difficult and repetitions likely. All this is in order to demand more quality from the players. Both sides have to give their best even if a game is objectively won and lost for quite a while.
Actually this does make a lot of sense. I still hate the rule tho lol
@TheLyinKing said in #48:
> Well I didn't link the game so it's hard to debate. Most ppl here think the opponent did a normal 3 fold, and that's just not it.
Moves, 54, 56, 58. Literally three moves in a row (well, three pairs of moves (meaning three quartets of half-moves, but anyway...)). It couldn't be more obvious.
> Well I didn't link the game so it's hard to debate. Most ppl here think the opponent did a normal 3 fold, and that's just not it.
Moves, 54, 56, 58. Literally three moves in a row (well, three pairs of moves (meaning three quartets of half-moves, but anyway...)). It couldn't be more obvious.
Yeah that's my point. It's not a "3 fold" like everyone is saying. It's a three PAIRS of moves. Different rule and situation here.
In fact, thanks for posting the game like that I didn't know that was possible :) it further proves my point!
Abolish whatever this rule here is cause it ain't three fold! Hmm
Abolish whatever this rule here is cause it ain't three fold! Hmm
l'inconvertible..
You gotta love AsDaGo's summary: "Moves, 54, 56, 58. Literally three moves in a row (well, three pairs of moves (meaning three quartets of half-moves, but anyway...)). It couldn't be more obvious."
Threefold: Threefold Occurrence of the same position (also minding castling rights and en passant opportunities).
Problems:
To accept it at all that normal chess moves- like the position repeating moves- at times do not continue the game but end the game.
To have the misnomer 'threefold repetition' lingering, while really the second repetition of a position makes the third occurence, thus completing the threefold. That is one part of why we often feel like it cannot already be the case.
To identify a position that is reached from up to three different angles and not necessarily on consecutive moves. To see it coming at all from the perspective of the different paths we took. The second part of why we often feel it cannot already be the case.
Nice:
There is a stringency to the game, it is more to the point.
It adds another weapon to the arsenal of the eventual underdog who is not happy suffering.
Two players who are happy with a third occurrence because the richness of that position can be further explored are can play on- only on a position's 5th occurrence the arbiter would be obliged to declare the game drawn.
You gotta love AsDaGo's summary: "Moves, 54, 56, 58. Literally three moves in a row (well, three pairs of moves (meaning three quartets of half-moves, but anyway...)). It couldn't be more obvious."
Threefold: Threefold Occurrence of the same position (also minding castling rights and en passant opportunities).
Problems:
To accept it at all that normal chess moves- like the position repeating moves- at times do not continue the game but end the game.
To have the misnomer 'threefold repetition' lingering, while really the second repetition of a position makes the third occurence, thus completing the threefold. That is one part of why we often feel like it cannot already be the case.
To identify a position that is reached from up to three different angles and not necessarily on consecutive moves. To see it coming at all from the perspective of the different paths we took. The second part of why we often feel it cannot already be the case.
Nice:
There is a stringency to the game, it is more to the point.
It adds another weapon to the arsenal of the eventual underdog who is not happy suffering.
Two players who are happy with a third occurrence because the richness of that position can be further explored are can play on- only on a position's 5th occurrence the arbiter would be obliged to declare the game drawn.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.