Answers.Body: <p>This is called perpetual check and it is a draw. There is no extra rule for perpetual check because the draw can be claimed by invoking the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_repetition">three-fold repetition rule</a>. (You said positions were not repeating, but if you cannot escape from a perpetual check, they will repeat sooner or later).</p>
  
  <p>If you carefully go through the game, you will probably spot a possibility to prevent him from giving perpetual check. In that case you missed a win. Often you can manoeuvre in such a way, that at one point you can block a check by giving check yourself. But if you cannot find a way to escape from the checks a draw is a fair result and this is a common occurrence even in grandmaster games.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-10T09:02:38.763Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-09-10T09:02:38.763Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.Body: <p>In the vast majority of the cases, an ending of Q+R vs. Q should be winning.</p>
  
  <p>However, some exceptions exist, for instance: </p>
  
  <pre>
  <code>
  [FEN "6RK/7Q/5q2/8/8/8/8/3k4 w - - 0 1"]
  
        1.Qg7 Qh4+ 2.Qh7 Qf6+ 3.Rg7 Qd8+ 4.Qg8 Qh4+ 5.Rh7 Qf6+
  </code>
  </pre>
  
  <p>In case you want to check whether your game was winning or not and how to win it, you can consult a tablebase, for example the <a href="http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html">free online tablebase of Shredder</a>.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-11T13:59:23.223Z
Answers.Text: This was the exact thing which I came across when trying to analyze the match.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tanay Karnik
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-10T09:12:57.127Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-09-10T09:12:57.127Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Maxwell86
Answers.Body: <p>According to theory, this endgame is won for the Q+R side. Note that you can afford a queen exchange, since K+R still wins against a lone K.</p>
  
  <p>You should manage winning it (or reducing it by Q exchange) in less than 50 full moves which gives your oppenent the opportunity to claim a draw.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-10T15:10:46.097Z
Answers.Text: Exactly what'd I attempt, in this scenario.  I find it best to eliminate variables during the end game.  K+R v K is much easier to conclude than Q+R+K v Q+K.
Answers.UserDisplayName: bishop
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-11T14:03:52.263Z
Answers.Text: I think that if it was possible to exchange queens then obviously I would have done so. But, there was no chance of escaping the checks.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tanay Karnik
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-09-10T08:38:43.980Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-09-10T08:38:43.980Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sir Cornflakes
Body: <p>Today, when I was playing end game I had a queen, a rook and a king (no pawns). My opponent had just a queen. It was his turn (the board was pretty blank) and he started giving continuous checks. I tried to bring my pieces to defend the king but couldn't stop.</p>
  <p>After sometime he claimed for a draw and argued that otherwise this would continue for ever (positions were not repeating, but still). I agreed.</p>
  <p>Is there any way to defend in such cases or is the match just over?
  Even, is it fair that though we have a good lead the opponent is forcing a tie?
  What would be the result if such thing happens in GM game?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-09-10T15:13:05.263Z
Comments.Text: Don't get suckered into a draw. Force your opponent to *demonstrate* three-fold repetition. Of course, if you *know* you can't win, sell your opponent on a draw.
Comments.UserDisplayName: bishop
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-09-10T20:24:05.823Z
Comments.Text: Do you have the move list?  I would like to see the progression.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Matt
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-09-11T11:20:28.370Z
Comments.Text: He could have invoked the 50 moves without capture or pawn movement draw...
Comments.UserDisplayName: Erbureth
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-09-11T13:56:34.093Z
Comments.Text: @Matt I'm sorry, but I don't have to habit of saving my each and every match.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tanay Karnik
Tags: <analysis><endgame><draw><queen-and-rook-endgame>
Title: Endgame - pawnless Queen + Rook vs Queen
ThreadText: # Endgame - pawnless Queen + Rook vs Queen
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-09-10)
  
  Today, when I was playing end game I had a queen, a rook and a king (no pawns). My opponent had just a queen. It was his turn (the board was pretty blank) and he started giving continuous checks. I tried to bring my pieces to defend the king but couldn't stop.
  
  After sometime he claimed for a draw and argued that otherwise this would continue for ever (positions were not repeating, but still). I agreed.
  
  Is there any way to defend in such cases or is the match just over?
  Even, is it fair that though we have a good lead the opponent is forcing a tie?
  What would be the result if such thing happens in GM game?
  
  **Tags:** analysis, endgame, draw, queen-and-rook-endgame
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Don't get suckered into a draw. Force your opponent to *demonstrate* three-fold repetition. Of course, if you *know* you can't win, sell your opponent on a draw.  
  > **username_2**: Do you have the move list?  I would like to see the progression.  
  > **username_3**: He could have invoked the 50 moves without capture or pawn movement draw...  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 I'm sorry, but I don't have to habit of saving my each and every match.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2015-09-10. Score: 18
  
  In the vast majority of the cases, an ending of Q+R vs. Q should be winning.
  However, some exceptions exist, for instance: 
  
  
  [FEN "6RK/7Q/5q2/8/8/8/8/3k4 w - - 0 1"]
  
        1.Qg7 Qh4+ 2.Qh7 Qf6+ 3.Rg7 Qd8+ 4.Qg8 Qh4+ 5.Rh7 Qf6+
  
  
  In case you want to check whether your game was winning or not and how to win it, you can consult a tablebase, for example the free online tablebase of Shredder.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: This was the exact thing which I came across when trying to analyze the match.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2015-09-10. Score: 11
  
  This is called perpetual check and it is a draw. There is no extra rule for perpetual check because the draw can be claimed by invoking the [three-fold repetition rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_repetition). (You said positions were not repeating, but if you cannot escape from a perpetual check, they will repeat sooner or later).
  
  If you carefully go through the game, you will probably spot a possibility to prevent him from giving perpetual check. In that case you missed a win. Often you can manoeuvre in such a way, that at one point you can block a check by giving check yourself. But if you cannot find a way to escape from the checks a draw is a fair result and this is a common occurrence even in grandmaster games.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2015-09-10. Score: 3
  
  According to theory, this endgame is won for the Q+R side. Note that you can afford a queen exchange, since K+R still wins against a lone K.
  
  You should manage winning it (or reducing it by Q exchange) in less than 50 full moves which gives your oppenent the opportunity to claim a draw.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Exactly what'd I attempt, in this scenario.  I find it best to eliminate variables during the end game.  K+R v K is much easier to conclude than Q+R+K v Q+K.  
  > **username_0**: I think that if it was possible to exchange queens then obviously I would have done so. But, there was no chance of escaping the checks.  
  
  ---
  
  