Perpetual check

Last updated

In the game of chess, perpetual check is a situation in which one player can force a draw by an unending series of checks. This typically arises when the player who is checking cannot deliver checkmate, and failing to continue the series of checks gives the opponent at least a chance to win. A draw by perpetual check is no longer one of the rules of chess; however, such a situation will eventually allow a draw claim by either threefold repetition or the fifty-move rule. Players usually agree to a draw long before that, however. [1]

Contents

Perpetual check can also occur in other forms of chess, although the rules relating to it might be different. For example, giving perpetual check is not allowed in shogi and xiangqi, where doing so leads to an automatic loss for the giver.

Examples

Example from Reinfeld
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
White to move draws by perpetual check, starting with 1.Qe8+.

In this diagram, Black is ahead a rook, a bishop, and a pawn, which would normally be a decisive material advantage. But White, to move, can draw by perpetual check:

1. Qe8+ Kh7
2. Qh5+ Kg8
3. Qe8+ etc. [2]

The same position will soon repeat for the third time and White can claim a draw by threefold repetition; or the players will agree to a draw.

Unzicker versus Averbakh

Unzicker vs. Averbakh, 1952
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Perpetual check extricates Black from his difficulties.

In the diagram, from Wolfgang UnzickerYuri Averbakh, Stockholm Interzonal 1952, [3] Black (on move) would soon be forced to give up one of his rooks for White's c-pawn (to prevent it from promoting or to capture the promoted queen after promotion). He can, however, exploit the weakness of White's kingside pawn structure with

27... Rxc7!
28. Qxc7 Ng4!

Threatening 29...Qh2#. If 29.hxg4 then 29...Qf2+, salvaging a draw by threefold repetition with checks by moving the queen alternatively to f2 and h4.

Hamppe versus Meitner

Hamppe vs. Meitner, 1872
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Down massive amounts of material, Black forces a draw by perpetual check.

In a classic game Carl HamppePhilipp Meitner, Vienna 1872, [4] following a series of sacrifices Black forced the game to the position in the diagram, where he drew by a perpetual check:

16... Bb7+!
17. Kb5

If 17.Kxb7?? Kd7 18.Qg4+ Kd6 followed by ...Rhb8#.

17... Ba6+
18. Kc6

If 18.Ka4?, 18...Bc4 and 19...b5#.

18... Bb7+ ½–½

Leko versus Kramnik

Leko vs. Kramnik, 2008
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Position after 24.Qxf5

In the game Peter LekoVladimir Kramnik, Corus 2008, Black was able to obtain a draw because of perpetual check: [5]

24... Qb4+
25. Ka2 Qa4+
26. Kb2 Qb4+
27. Kc1 Qa3+
28. Kb1 ½–½

If 28.Kd2? Rd8+ 29.Ke2 Qe7+.

Fischer versus Tal

Fischer vs. Tal, 1960 Bundesarchiv Bild 183-76052-0335, Schacholympiade, Tal (UdSSR) gegen Fischer (USA).jpg
Fischer vs. Tal, 1960
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Position after 21.Kxg2

A perpetual check saved a draw for Mikhail Tal in the game Bobby Fischer–Tal, Leipzig 1960, [6] played in the 14th Chess Olympiad, while Tal was World Champion. In this position Black played

 21... Qg4+

and the game was drawn. [7] (After 22.Kh1, then 22...Qf3+ 23.Kg1 Qg4+ forces perpetual check.)

Mutual perpetual check

abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess Nlt45.svg
Chess Nlt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Mutual discovered perpetual check with nightriders

A mutual perpetual check is not possible using only the orthodox chess pieces, but it is possible using some fairy chess pieces. In the diagram to the right, the pieces represented as upside-down knights are nightriders: they move any number of knight-moves in a given direction until they are blocked by something along the path (that is, a nightrider is to a knight as a queen is to a king, ignoring the rules on check). There could follow:

1. Ke3+ Kd5+
2. Kd3+ Ke5+
3. Ke3+ Kd5+

and so on. This is in fact a mutual perpetual discovered check. [9]

Noam Elkies, 1999
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess Ndt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Mutual discovered perpetual check with a camel

Noam Elkies devised a mutual discovered perpetual check position that requires only one fairy piece in 1999. The piece represented by an inverted knight here is a camel, a (1,3)-leaper. There could follow:

1. Nb5+ Cc5+
2. Nd4+ Cb2+
3. Nb5+ Cc5+

and so on. [10]

Perpetual pursuit

S. Birnov, 1928
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
White to play and draw

Related to perpetual check is the perpetual pursuit, which differs in that the continually attacked piece is not the king. The result is similar, in that the opposing side's attack stalls because of the need to respond to the continuous threats. [11]

In the study to the right, White's situation seems hopeless: they are down a piece and cannot stop Black's h-pawn, and their passed a-pawn can easily be stopped by Black's bishop. However, they can save themself by restricting the bishop's movement to set up a perpetual pursuit. They begin:

1. a6 Bxc4

A direct pawn race with 1...h3? fails, as White promotes first and covers the promotion square.

2. e4+!

This pawn sacrifice forces Black to limit their bishop's scope along the long diagonal.

2... Kxe4

Forced, as Black has to play ...Bd5 to stop the pawn.

3. a7 Bd5
4. c4!

Denying another square to the bishop, which must stay on the a8–h1 diagonal. This forces

4... Ba8

And White can then begin the perpetual pursuit:

5. Kb8 Bc6
6. Kc7 Ba8

Black can make no progress.

Bilek vs. Schüssler, 1978
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
White attempts to win the enemy queen...
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
...but traps his own into a perpetual pursuit.

An example of perpetual pursuit being used in a game occurred in István BilekHarry Schüssler, Poutiainen Memorial 1978. Bilek thought he could win the enemy queen with the combination

10. Nf6+ gxf6
11. Bxf7+ Kxf7
12. Qxd8

However, Schüssler replied

12... Nd5! ½–½

and Bilek conceded the draw. His queen is now trapped, and with ...Bb4+ threatening to win it, he has nothing better than 13.0-0 Bg7 14.Qd6 Bf8 15.Qd8 Bg7 with another perpetual pursuit.

History

N.N. vs. Unknown, 1750
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess rdt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess nlt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess ndt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess bdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess rlt45.svg
Chess blt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Final position after 15...Kh7

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, Volume 1 (1485–1866) includes all recorded games played up to 1800. [12] The earliest example of perpetual check contained in it is a game played by two unknown players in 1750:

N.N. versus Unknown, 1750
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. 0-0 (the rules of castling not yet having been standardized in their current form, White moved his king to h1 and his rook to f1) 4... Nf6 5. Nc3 Ng4 6. d3 0-0 (Black moved his king to h8 and his rook to f8) 7. Ng5 d6 8. h3 h6 9. Nxf7+ Rxf7 10. Bxf7 Qh4 11. Qf3 Nxf2+ 12. Rxf2 Bxf2 13. Nd5 Nd4 14. Ne7 Nxf3 15. Ng6+ Kh7 ½–½ in light of 16.Nf8+ Kh8 17.Ng6+ etc. [13]

The next examples of perpetual check in the book are two games, both ending in perpetual check, played in 1788 between Bowdler and Philidor, with Philidor giving odds of pawn and move. [14]

A draw by perpetual check used to be in the rules of chess. [15] [16] Howard Staunton gave it as one of six ways to draw a game in The Chess-Player's Handbook. [17] It has since been removed because perpetual check will eventually allow a draw claim by either threefold repetition or the fifty-move rule. If a player demonstrates intent to perform perpetual check, the players usually agree to a draw. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

Castling is a move in chess. It consists of moving the king two squares toward a rook on the same rank and then moving the rook to the square that the king passed over. Castling is permitted only if neither the king nor the rook has previously moved; the squares between the king and the rook are vacant; and the king does not leave, cross over, or finish on a square attacked by an enemy piece. Castling is the only move in chess in which two pieces are moved at once.

Zugzwang is a situation found in chess and other turn-based games wherein one player is put at a disadvantage because of their obligation to make a move; a player is said to be "in zugzwang" when any legal move will worsen their position.

In chess, there are a number of ways that a game can end in a draw, neither player winning. Draws are codified by various rules of chess including stalemate, threefold repetition, and the fifty-move rule. Under the standard FIDE rules, a draw also occurs in a dead position, most commonly when neither player has sufficient material to checkmate the opponent.

Stalemate is a situation in chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check and has no legal move. Stalemate results in a draw. During the endgame, stalemate is a resource that can enable the player with the inferior position to draw the game rather than lose. In more complex positions, stalemate is much rarer, usually taking the form of a swindle that succeeds only if the superior side is inattentive. Stalemate is also a common theme in endgame studies and other chess problems.

The Grünfeld Defence is a chess opening characterised by the moves:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter Leko</span> Hungarian chess grandmaster

Peter Leko is a Hungarian chess player and commentator. He became the world's youngest grandmaster in 1994. He narrowly missed winning the Classical World Chess Championship 2004: the match was drawn 7–7 and so Vladimir Kramnik retained the title. He also came fifth in the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005 and fourth in the World Chess Championship 2007.

In chess, the threefold repetition rule states that a player may claim a draw if the same position occurs three times during the game. The rule is also known as repetition of position and, in the USCF rules, as triple occurrence of position. Two positions are by definition "the same" if the same types of pieces occupy the same squares, the same player has the move, the remaining castling rights are the same and the possibility to capture en passant is the same. The repeated positions need not occur in succession. The reasoning behind the rule is that if the position occurs three times, no real progress is being made and the game could hypothetically continue indefinitely.

The zwischenzug is a chess tactic in which a player, instead of playing the expected move, first interposes another move posing an immediate threat that the opponent must answer, and only then plays the expected move. It is a move that has a high degree of "initiative". Ideally, the zwischenzug changes the situation to the player's advantage, such as by gaining material or avoiding what would otherwise be a strong continuation for the opponent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Promotion (chess)</span> Chess rule

In chess, promotion is the replacement of a pawn with a new piece when the pawn is moved to its last rank. The player replaces the pawn immediately with a queen, rook, bishop, or knight of the same color. The new piece does not have to be a previously captured piece. Promotion is mandatory when moving to the last rank; the pawn cannot remain as a pawn.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tarrasch rule</span> General principle in chess

The Tarrasch rule is a general principle that applies in the majority of chess middlegames and endgames. Siegbert Tarrasch (1862–1934) stated the "rule" that rooks should be placed behind passed pawns – either the player's or the opponent's. The idea behind the guideline is that (1) if a player's rook is behind his passed pawn, the rook protects it as it advances, and (2) if it is behind an opponent's passed pawn, the pawn cannot advance unless it is protected along its way.

In chess, a sacrifice is a move that gives up a piece with the objective of gaining tactical or positional compensation in other forms. A sacrifice could also be a deliberate exchange of a chess piece of higher value for an opponent's piece of lower value.

The chess endgame with a king and a pawn versus a king is one of the most important and fundamental endgames, other than the basic checkmates. It is an important endgame for chess players to master, since most other endgames have the potential of reducing to this type of endgame via exchanges of pieces. Players need to be able to determine quickly whether a given position is a win or a draw, and to know the technique for playing it. The crux of this endgame is whether or not the pawn can be promoted, so checkmate can be forced.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Touch-move rule</span> Chess rule requiring a player to move or capture a piece deliberately touched

The touch-move rule in chess specifies that a player, having the move, who deliberately touches a piece on the board must move or capture that piece if it is legal to do so. If it is the player's piece that was touched, it must be moved if the piece has a legal move. If the opponent's piece was touched, it must be captured if it can be captured with a legal move. If the touched piece cannot be legally moved or captured, there is no penalty. This is a rule of chess that is enforced in all formal over-the-board competitions.

In chess, a blunder is a critically bad move or decision. A blunder severely worsens the player's situation by allowing a loss of material, checkmate, or anything similar. It is usually caused by some tactical oversight, whether due to time trouble, overconfidence, or carelessness. Although blunders are most common in beginner games, all human players make them, even at the world championship level. Creating opportunities for the opponent to blunder is an important skill in over-the-board chess.

In chess, a desperado is a piece that is either en prise or trapped, but captures an enemy piece before it is itself captured in order to compensate the loss a little, or is used as a sacrifice that will result in stalemate if it is captured. The former case can arise in a situation where both sides have hanging pieces, in which case these pieces are used to win material prior to being captured. A desperado in the latter case is usually a rook or a queen; such a piece is sometimes also called crazy or mad.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Swindle (chess)</span> Chess maneuver

In chess, a swindle is a ruse by which a player in a losing position tricks their opponent and thereby achieves a win or draw instead of the expected loss. It may also refer more generally to obtaining a win or draw from a clearly losing position. I. A. Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld distinguish among "traps", "pitfalls", and "swindles". In their terminology, a "trap" refers to a situation where players go wrong through their own efforts. In a "pitfall", the beneficiary of the pitfall plays an active role, creating a situation where a plausible move by the opponent will turn out badly. A "swindle" is a pitfall adopted by a player who has a clearly lost game. Horowitz and Reinfeld observe that swindles, "though ignored in virtually all chess books", "play an enormously important role in over-the-board chess, and decide the fate of countless games".

The opposite-colored bishops endgame is a chess endgame in which each side has a single bishop and those bishops operate on opposite-colored squares. Without other pieces besides pawns and the kings, these endings are widely known for their tendency to result in a draw. These are the most difficult endings in which to convert a small material advantage to a win. With additional pieces, the stronger side has more chances to win, but still not as many as when bishops are on the same color.

The queen and pawn versus queen endgame is a chess endgame in which both sides have a queen and one side has a pawn, which one tries to promote. It is very complicated and difficult to play. Cross-checks are often used as a device to win the game by forcing the exchange of queens. It is almost always a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immortal Draw</span>

The Immortal Draw is a chess game played in 1872 in Vienna by Carl Hamppe and Philipp Meitner. This game is the main claim to fame of both Hamppe and Meitner, and has been reprinted widely. The variation of the Vienna Game it uses was named the Hamppe–Meitner Variation in honour of the two players. The game was played in the 19th-century Romantic style, in which rapid development and attack were considered the most effective way to win, where many gambits and countergambits were offered, and where material was often held in contempt. These games, with their rapid attacks and counterattacks, are often entertaining to review even if some of the moves would no longer be considered best by today's standards.

References

  1. ( Burgess 2000 :478)
  2. ( Reinfeld 1958 :42–43)
  3. "Unzicker vs. Averbakh, Stockholm 1952". Chessgames.com .
  4. "Hamppe vs. Meitner, Vienna 1872". Chessgames.com .
  5. "Leko vs. Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2008". Chessgames.com .
  6. "Fischer vs. Tal, Leipzig 1960". Chessgames.com .
  7. ( Evans 1970 :53)
  8. Die Schwalbe
  9. Tim Krabbé, Open chess diary see item 120
  10. Tim Krabbé, Open chess diary see item 125
  11. Seirawan, Yasser; Silman, Jeremy (2003). Winning Chess Tactics. London: Everyman Chess. pp. 119–121. ISBN   1857443330.
  12. ( Levy & O'Connell 1981 :ix)
  13. ( Levy & O'Connell 1981 :9)
  14. ( Levy & O'Connell 1981 :12)
  15. ( Reinfeld 1954 :175)
  16. ( Reinfeld 1958 :41–43)
  17. ( Staunton 1847 :21)
  18. ( Hooper & Whyld 1992 )

Bibliography