Re: [pbmserv] Interesting ethical issue: perpetual check

["Gregory A. Swarthout" <gregorys@xmission.com>]

Ezequiel Martín Cámara wrote:
> On 2/22/06, *Roman Semko* <Roman.Semko@db.com 
> <mailto:Roman.Semko@db.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     Theoretically its a draw, but who uses this strategy has already lost.
>
>     Chess is a game of mind. There is no grace if you do perpetual
>     check. If you are a good player, it shouldn´t have come to this
>     situation. Otherwise accept the defeat. 
>
>  
> That is not right.  Perpetual check is a part of chess. It ends the game 
> as a tie.

Not so.  According to Wikipedia:

Either player may claim a draw by indicating that one of the following 
conditions exists:

At one time, if a player was able to check the opposing king continually 
(perpetual check) and he indicated his intention to do so, the game was 
drawn. This rule is no longer in effect; however, players will usually 
agree to a draw in such a situation, since either the threefold 
repetition rule or the fifty move rule will eventually go into effect.

    * Fifty moves have been played by each player without a piece being 
captured or a pawn moved.

    * The same board position has been repeated three times, with the 
same player to move and all pieces having the same rights to move, 
including the right to castle or capture en passant.

Again, even if Terrace had the same rules, they wouldn't come into play
in the game being played because I can easily avoid the perpetual check 
situation.

Greg