Recently I “declared perpetual check” in a game that, although I had a winning position, I would have lost on time. His King was on c6 while my Queen was on c3. His Queen was off on h4 with his pawn on h5. My King was on g2 with my pawns on f2 and a3. I had checked him about 12 times but my clock was running down. So with 1:57 on my clock I paused the clock and declared a perpetual check. He seemed confused so we agreed to play it out with the stipulation that if the position was a perpetual check (verified by our off-site arbiter–I was the TD) it would be declared a draw.
Reading the USCF rulebook muddied the waters for me. What is the correct ruling and procedure? We are awaiting the decision by our off-site arbiter.
This tourney takes place over several weeks, at various times and locales that are convenient for the participants.
Perpetual check is just a draw by three move repetition in which one player can force the position to repeat.
It should be handled like any other three move repetition situation, though in most cases if you demonstrate the perpetual check to your opponent he will acknowledge the games is a draw.
You gottta be careful here. There’s no perpetual check rule. As nolan says, you have to prove that the position has occurred or is about to occur three or more times. Just saying that you can keep moving your queen around to different places and check the king is not enough.
You should either claim a 3 repetition draw, or a 50 move draw, right? If you don’t have a delay clock, I guess that you could also claim insufficient losing chances as a basis for a draw.
No such draw claim as “perpetual check”, since it is covered by other draw claims.
Also, you forgot to state what the outcome of “playing it out” was. That may be relevant if, for example, you lost or drew.
You also gotta be careful when you are a TD and playing a game. You gotta be absolutely sure you are invoking the rules correctly, otherwise, it will undermine your authority in the future. When there is a three move repetition, the TD has no right to “declare a draw”.
In your case, the correct thing to do would have been to pause the clock and claim a draw. If you were not keeping score at that time (the usual way of demonstrating the repetition), then you would have to prove in a reasonable amount of time that you could force the repetition.
You should not claim a draw unless you KNOW that you can force it or prove beyond doubt that the position was repeated. If you could not prove it (for example, if the position is a win for you but you find no forced repetition, or agreed reconstruction of a repetition), then you would have to add two minutes to your opponent’s time and restart the clock. Anything else compromises your integrity as a TD. This kind of thing is also why the book cautions about TDing your own games.
By the way, special arbiters or referees, if that’s what you are referring to, are not there to judge on chess positions. They are there to assist in the application of the rules.
Regarding the perpetual check claim: It was correctly ruled a loss for the reasons that Nolan and others pointed out. This was a good clarification for me. This is my first adult TD tourney. I was told that I could have claimed “insufficient losing chances” and it would have been upheld.
I only played to fill a last minute cancellation. It is an over-time, invitational RR—and a full roster was part of the publicity. It was a good learning experience and the system (outside arbitrator with lots of TD experience) worked. This system was part of our advertisement for the invitational. We stated that any rule question or dispute would be handled in this way. Most games are played outside of my presence since the tourney allows for flexibility of location and time.
Thanks all for your help. Your responses prepared me for the correct decision and it also prepared me make the correct decision.