Answers.Body: <p>What you are describing is Perpetual Check: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_check">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_check</a></p>
  
  <p>It is covered in the rules of chess and the result of such a game is a draw. It is up to your opponent to try and avoid this situation if he thinks he can win. Conversely, if you might lose you should try to get into some kind of draw situation to avoid a loss.</p>
  
  <p>Anecdote: A queen vs. queen, knight, and bishop did the same thing at the club quick tournament last night.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-10T13:28:38.687Z
Answers.Text: To clarify: The exact rules that cover perpetual check are threefold repetition (the same position occurring three times in a game) and 50 move rule (50 consecutive moves by both players, that is, 100 half-moves, without a pawn move or a capture). Perpetual check obviously results to either one of those eventually.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JiK
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-10T13:23:52.490Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-10-10T13:23:52.490Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ZL1Corvette
Answers.Body: <p>Yes, it is proper chess etiquette. You are not obliged to resign if you have an inferior position. If you can force a 3-move repetition draw by non-stop checks (called "<strong>perpetual checks</strong>") you definitely should. Players at the highest level have done this.</p>
  
  <p>In fact, we even celebrate some games which have ended with perpetual check by the side with the weaker material. Consider the famous "<strong>Immortal Draw</strong>" game - </p>
  
  <p><a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250160">Carl Hamppe vs Philipp Meitner 1872, 1/2-1/2</a>  </p>
  
  <pre><code>  [Event "Vienna"]
    [Site "Vienna"]
    [Date "1872"]
    [Result "1/2-1/2"]
    [White "Carl Hamppe"]
    [Black "Philipp Meitner"]
    [FEN ""]
  
    1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. Na4 Bxf2+ 4. Kxf2 Qh4+ 5. Ke3 Qf4+ 
    6. Kd3 d5 7. Kc3 Qxe4 8. Kb3 Na6 9. a3 Qxa4+ 10. Kxa4 Nc5+
    11. Kb4 a5+ 12. Kxc5 Ne7 13. Bb5+ Kd8 14. Bc6 b6+ 15. Kb5 Nxc6
    16. Kxc6 Bb7+ 17. Kb5 Ba6+ 18. Kc6 Bb7+ 1/2-1/2
  </code></pre>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-10T19:07:38.733Z
Answers.Text: It may also be worth noting a famous computer-vs-GM game (I think Deep Blue v. Kasparov) where Kasparov resigned in a situation where other people soon realized he could have salvaged a draw by perpetual check.  The sequence of moves that would lead to the repeating position (with a major material sacrifice, IIRC) was sufficiently long that Deep Blue didn't analyze it fully, but Kasparov thought that if the perpetual check would work Deep Blue would have acted to prevent it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-10T19:15:35.053Z
Answers.Text: @supercat, ya, I am aware of that example. However, I didn't want to mention it because latest analysis shows that there was no perpetual. Anyway, it would have been a good example to show that perpetual check is accepted as a valid way of ending a game.
Answers.UserDisplayName: NM Wesley Falcao
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-10T19:28:31.513Z
Answers.Text: There wasn't a perpetual? Really? Is there some escape for Deep Blue which contemporary analysts hadn't seen?
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-10T20:57:05.197Z
Answers.Text: Wes, and @supercat I'm a total chess novice so I was wondering what I'm missing in the game above. Why could white not do Ka4 as move 18 instead of the move he did Kc6?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ryan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-10T21:21:43.763Z
Answers.Text: @ryan: After `18. Ka4 Bc4`, White would not be in check and would have many legal moves he could make, but none would prevent `19...b5++`.
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-10T21:27:43.250Z
Answers.Text: @supercat ah I see, I hadn't thought about Bc4 just Bb5 to keep him in check still. Guess that's why I'm such a chess novice :P
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ryan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-10T21:34:10.257Z
Answers.Text: @ryan: `18...Bb5+?? 19.Kxb5` is clearly not a good line. `18...b5+` doesn't work either because anything useful Black might do after `19.Kxa5` is curtailed by the b5 pawn blocking the bishop (if the b pawn simply disappeared, then `19.Kxa5 Be2+` would let Black bag a queen, but of course after `b5+` the pawn would be at `b5`).  Of course, since `18...Bc4!` sets up an unstoppable mate in 1, other moves aren't really relevant.
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-10T23:22:49.553Z
Answers.Text: What exactly is going on at `9. Qxa4+`? Just a stupid mistake by black?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rag
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-11T00:05:53.273Z
Answers.Text: @supercat, yes. After 45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8, they missed 47. Qd7+ followed by Qc6. Check with any modern engine. There is no perpetual.
Answers.UserDisplayName: NM Wesley Falcao
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-11T02:48:51.870Z
Answers.Text: @Wes: It's curious that's only mentioned on the Wiki talk page, but not on the main page discussing the matches.  Why did analysis at the time not realize that there was no perpetual, and when did that realization become public?
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-11T04:37:48.533Z
Answers.Text: @supercat, it's most likely because the engines couldn't see deep enough at that time. I remember seeing a video of the analysis on youtube some time ago and then I checked with my engine to confirm that there was indeed no perpetual.
Answers.UserDisplayName: NM Wesley Falcao
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-10-10T13:56:45.540Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-10-10T13:56:45.540Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: NM Wesley Falcao
Answers.Body: <p>Yes, this is good sportsmanship. In fact, the perpetual check is the most important defensive tactic in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_and_pawn_versus_queen_endgame" rel="nofollow">Queen+pawn vs Queen endgame</a>. </p>
  
  <p>I can add the following to the previous answers. Other variants of chess have a different opinion about this question. For example, in Chinese Chess, it is forbidden to make perpetual check. See, for example, <a href="http://www.clubxiangqi.com/rules/d1to3.htm" rel="nofollow">this resource</a>.</p>
  
  <p>I hope that my contribution is not too far from the topic.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-10-16T19:28:00.887Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-10-16T19:28:00.887Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alexandre Aksenov
Answers.Body: <p>There are several "forced" drawing conditions (other than an agreed draw). In most of these situations, someone is usually behind in material.Basically, a draw occurs when one player can prevent the other from checkmating him, using force.</p>
  
  <p>One is "insufficient material to win." That is, someone has a king and bishop or knight against a lone king, and can't force a win. Another is "stalemate, whereby one player can't make a legal move, but is not in check (and is therefore not "checkmated"). </p>
  
  <p>Your situation covers two more categories of draw. The "classic" description of your situation is called perpetual check. That is, you keep the other side so "busy" dodging your checks that your opponent never gets a chance to checkmate you. This also leads to another drawing condition called "repetition of position." That is, if the same position is repeated three times, with the same player to move, it is a draw.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-10-13T20:06:01.193Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-10-13T20:06:01.193Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Answers.Body: <p>If the chess opponent is not good, then he could <em>lose</em> a queen, then all you now need to do is do a Queen-as-Rook+King check<em>mate</em>.</p>
  
  <p>However, if he <em>is</em> good, then perpetual check is <em>not</em> an option. You will lose your queen, and get mated by the double Queen mate.</p>
  
  <p>Unfortunately, the <em>only</em> way you will get a queen is by a skewer attack and luck. Keep your Queen close to your King, and guarantee at least a Queen loss for the opponent. </p>
  
  <p>He can perpetually check you. There is no denying it. <em>If he does decide to do so, do the same to him</em>.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-10-14T15:18:54.000Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-10-14T15:32:22.117Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2016-10-14T15:32:22.117Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Garrison Pendergrass
Body: <p>I am losing a game. My only option is to check my opponent non stop. I have no chance to checkmate him. I am only hoping to force a draw. Is this proper chess etiquette?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-10-10T23:17:43.850Z
Comments.Text: It's never bad etiquette to play for the win, or play for the draw if you think you can't win.  Bad etiquette would be refusing your opponent's offer of a draw and forcing them to actually play out 50 moves of perpetual check.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Dan Staley
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-10-12T11:08:12.250Z
Comments.Text: @DanStaley: if they are low on time, drag it to 50 moves so you can win on time
Comments.UserDisplayName: jimjim
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-10-14T03:33:43.790Z
Comments.Text: If he's that superior, he ought to be able to eventually stop the checks. Or perhaps he never should have let them begin.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-10-15T01:29:38.940Z
Comments.Text: Usually triple repetition kicks in long before the 50 move rule.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Noam D. Elkies
Tags: <draw><etiquette><check><perpetual>
Title: He has two queens. I have one. Is it proper chess etiquette to check him non stop just to avoid losing?
ThreadText: # He has two queens. I have one. Is it proper chess etiquette to check him non stop just to avoid losing?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-10)
  
  I am losing a game. My only option is to check my opponent non stop. I have no chance to checkmate him. I am only hoping to force a draw. Is this proper chess etiquette?
  
  **Tags:** draw, etiquette, check, perpetual
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: It's never bad etiquette to play for the win, or play for the draw if you think you can't win.  Bad etiquette would be refusing your opponent's offer of a draw and forcing them to actually play out 50 moves of perpetual check.  
  > **username_2**: @username_1: if they are low on time, drag it to 50 moves so you can win on time  
  > **username_3**: If he's that superior, he ought to be able to eventually stop the checks. Or perhaps he never should have let them begin.  
  > **username_4**: Usually triple repetition kicks in long before the 50 move rule.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2014-10-10. Score: 15
  
  What you are describing is Perpetual Check: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_check>
  
  It is covered in the rules of chess and the result of such a game is a draw. It is up to your opponent to try and avoid this situation if he thinks he can win. Conversely, if you might lose you should try to get into some kind of draw situation to avoid a loss.
  
  Anecdote: A queen vs. queen, knight, and bishop did the same thing at the club quick tournament last night.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: To clarify: The exact rules that cover perpetual check are threefold repetition (the same position occurring three times in a game) and 50 move rule (50 consecutive moves by both players, that is, 100 half-moves, without a pawn move or a capture). Perpetual check obviously results to either one of those eventually.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2014-10-10. Score: 7
  
  Yes, it is proper chess etiquette. You are not obliged to resign if you have an inferior position. If you can force a 3-move repetition draw by non-stop checks (called "**perpetual checks**") you definitely should. Players at the highest level have done this.
  
  In fact, we even celebrate some games which have ended with perpetual check by the side with the weaker material. Consider the famous "**Immortal Draw**" game -
  
  [Carl Hamppe vs Philipp Meitner 1872, 1/2-1/2](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250160)
  
  ```
    [Event "Vienna"]
    [Site "Vienna"]
    [Date "1872"]
    [Result "1/2-1/2"]
    [White "Carl Hamppe"]
    [Black "Philipp Meitner"]
    [FEN ""]
  
    1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. Na4 Bxf2+ 4. Kxf2 Qh4+ 5. Ke3 Qf4+ 
    6. Kd3 d5 7. Kc3 Qxe4 8. Kb3 Na6 9. a3 Qxa4+ 10. Kxa4 Nc5+
    11. Kb4 a5+ 12. Kxc5 Ne7 13. Bb5+ Kd8 14. Bc6 b6+ 15. Kb5 Nxc6
    16. Kxc6 Bb7+ 17. Kb5 Ba6+ 18. Kc6 Bb7+ 1/2-1/2
  
  ```
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_8**: It may also be worth noting a famous computer-vs-GM game (I think Deep Blue v. Kasparov) where Kasparov resigned in a situation where other people soon realized he could have salvaged a draw by perpetual check.  The sequence of moves that would lead to the repeating position (with a major material sacrifice, IIRC) was sufficiently long that Deep Blue didn't analyze it fully, but Kasparov thought that if the perpetual check would work Deep Blue would have acted to prevent it.  
  > **username_7**: @username_8, ya, I am aware of that example. However, I didn't want to mention it because latest analysis shows that there was no perpetual. Anyway, it would have been a good example to show that perpetual check is accepted as a valid way of ending a game.  
  > **username_8**: There wasn't a perpetual? Really? Is there some escape for Deep Blue which contemporary analysts hadn't seen?  
  > **username_9**: Wes, and @username_8 I'm a total chess novice so I was wondering what I'm missing in the game above. Why could white not do Ka4 as move 18 instead of the move he did Kc6?  
  > **username_8**: @username_9: After `18. Ka4 Bc4`, White would not be in check and would have many legal moves he could make, but none would prevent `19...b5++`.  
  > **username_9**: @username_8 ah I see, I hadn't thought about Bc4 just Bb5 to keep him in check still. Guess that's why I'm such a chess novice :P  
  > **username_8**: @username_9: `18...Bb5+?? 19.Kxb5` is clearly not a good line. `18...b5+` doesn't work either because anything useful Black might do after `19.Kxa5` is curtailed by the b5 pawn blocking the bishop (if the b pawn simply disappeared, then `19.Kxa5 Be2+` would let Black bag a queen, but of course after `b5+` the pawn would be at `b5`).  Of course, since `18...Bc4!` sets up an unstoppable mate in 1, other moves aren't really relevant.  
  > **username_10**: What exactly is going on at `9. Qxa4+`? Just a stupid mistake by black?  
  > **username_7**: @username_8, yes. After 45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8, they missed 47. Qd7+ followed by Qc6. Check with any modern engine. There is no perpetual.  
  > **username_8**: @Wes: It's curious that's only mentioned on the Wiki talk page, but not on the main page discussing the matches.  Why did analysis at the time not realize that there was no perpetual, and when did that realization become public?  
  > **username_7**: @username_8, it's most likely because the engines couldn't see deep enough at that time. I remember seeing a video of the analysis on youtube some time ago and then I checked with my engine to confirm that there was indeed no perpetual.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2016-10-16. Score: 1
  
  Yes, this is good sportsmanship. In fact, the perpetual check is the most important defensive tactic in the [Queen+pawn vs Queen endgame](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_and_pawn_versus_queen_endgame).
  
  I can add the following to the previous answers. Other variants of chess have a different opinion about this question. For example, in Chinese Chess, it is forbidden to make perpetual check. See, for example, [this resource](http://www.clubxiangqi.com/rules/d1to3.htm).
  
  I hope that my contribution is not too far from the topic.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_12 on 2016-10-13. Score: 0
  
  There are several "forced" drawing conditions (other than an agreed draw). In most of these situations, someone is usually behind in material.Basically, a draw occurs when one player can prevent the other from checkmating him, using force.
  
  One is "insufficient material to win." That is, someone has a king and bishop or knight against a lone king, and can't force a win. Another is "stalemate, whereby one player can't make a legal move, but is not in check (and is therefore not "checkmated").
  
  Your situation covers two more categories of draw. The "classic" description of your situation is called perpetual check. That is, you keep the other side so "busy" dodging your checks that your opponent never gets a chance to checkmate you. This also leads to another drawing condition called "repetition of position." That is, if the same position is repeated three times, with the same player to move, it is a draw.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_13 on 2016-10-14. Score: 0
  
  If the chess opponent is not good, then he could *lose* a queen, then all you now need to do is do a Queen-as-Rook+King check*mate*.
  
  However, if he *is* good, then perpetual check is *not* an option. You will lose your queen, and get mated by the double Queen mate.
  
  Unfortunately, the *only* way you will get a queen is by a skewer attack and luck. Keep your Queen close to your King, and guarantee at least a Queen loss for the opponent.
  
  He can perpetually check you. There is no denying it. *If he does decide to do so, do the same to him*.
  
  
  ---
  
  