What is a perpetual check?
Alex Relyea
I assume that this is a way of implicitly pointing out that I said something silly, but I can’t figure out what it is, so I’ll just take the question at face value and maybe you can explain more clearly what you were getting at.
To be more precise, I was referring to situations where it is in both players’ interest to repeat moves (or it is in one player’s interest and the other can’t avoid it). In many cases, such as this famous one, the repeated moves from one player are checks, thus the name perpetual check.
Alex, Plachutta interference isn’t defined in the rule book either. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Not at all, but as a TD I’ve had players ask how many checks in a row had to occur before it was perpetual check. Incidentally, I have a correspondence game going right now where (I think) I sacrificed a Bishop to force a repetition. Only one of my alternate moves is a check.
Alex Relyea
Perpetual check is no longer recognized in the rules as an official drawing method. Repetition of position is the rule. Many players are unaware of this.
The rule book explicitly states there is no “draw by perpetual check” (14C1). By comparison, the rule book does not address Plachutta interference at all.
The rule book does say that perpetual check is “an often-occurring special case of 14C”. I understand the desire to be precise, and I’m sure it is frustrating to TDs when players think that there is something special about checking that entitles them to extra drawing privileges or something, but it seems odd to me to try to avoid using a term for “a draw claim based on a three-time repetition of position that is achieved due to consecutive checks” that is both useful and common.
If we go back a lo-o-ong ways and rely on a vague memory, I think perpetual check was once defined as 70 consecutive checks with no regard as to whether or not there were any captures or pawn moves during those 70 moves.
Three-fold repetition and the 50-move rule supplanted the need for any perpetual check rule. A quick google search shows perpetual check showing up as a drawing method on the Encyclopedia Brittanica site.
But the context was that the game devolved into a perpetual check. Perpetual check is a tactic for achieving an objectively drawn position. The fact that a player has to go through either the triple occurrence or 50 move hoop to get a draw if the opponent won’t concede the obvious is only relevant if the discussion is about the rules claiming a draw. Here, the question is…what happens if someone sacks a rook to create a perpetual on move 20 if games are not supposed to be drawn until 30? Do the players have to go through the charade of repeating moves to get the move count up to 30?
This topic is a spin-off from Short draws and the ambiguous rule 14B6.
That’s interesting. Certainly before I began directing, and very likely before I began playing. I bet it wouldn’t be all that difficult to construct a position where one side is winning (by 3 and 50) but requires more than 70 consecutive checks.
Alex Relyea