Rare, but useful in some endgames where you intentionally put a potentially checking piece behind your king, e.g. a rook, so that when your king is attacked and moves, the check buys you time. I just did this very thing in a 3 0 game.
Couple q’s: Why isn’t Chess electronically timed remotely at the top levels? It seems a bit antiquated to still be slapping a clock, especially when two players are running out of time.
related: I know an accidental brush of a piece doesnt count as ‘being forced to move that piece’. But has there ever been a case where in the rush to not run out of time, some pieces got knocked over and whats the protocol?
I’m actually proud of a somewhat similar method I used to avoid a loss.
I was a B-player at the time, playing a higher rated B-player. I got into an uncomfortable closed position in which my opponent was applying a lot of pressure on my queenside. I thought for a long time, then realized I could lock the queenside up by advancing one of my pawns two squares. I did this, and as I was releasing my pawn, noticed that I had advanced past one of his pawns, allowing en passant capture, which would most likely allow him to breakthrough on the queenside (I obviously hadn’t analyzed the lines because I had neglected to consider the capture).
Without hesitation (or much thought), as I released to pawn, I offered a draw.
My opponent went into a deep think, then refused the draw and made his move, which was not the en passant capture!
In that instant between realizing my mistake and offering the draw, I had realized my chance too “overload” my opponent such that he too neglected to think of the en passant rule, which he confessed afterward he had (we ended up drawing the game).
Nice, but of course Black doesn’t have to play 1…Nb8+ - they can survive a little longer with 1…Ka7. So as a ‘mate in 2’ problem, the only sound solution is 1. Kb6, which sadly avoids the nice sequence of check-check-checkmate.
ETA: you could fix this by adding a black pawn on a7 to the starting position, but then there would no longer be a unique solution, since any legal king move on move 2 would be checkmate.
The clock thing is probably mainly traditional, but also avoids requiring a timekeeper for every game (especially in the Chess Olympiad)
From memory, someone who knocked over pieces had to replace them whilst their clock was running (and their opponent could restart the clock if necessary.)
And that appears to still be the case:
If a player knocks over pieces, it is the same player’s responsibility to restore them to their correct positions, on that player’s time.
Your play was fine.
The correct procedure is: you make your move, offer the draw and press the clock.
If your opponent doesn’t then notice a legal move, that is their problem.
My situation was that my opponent spoke to me (rude) then offered a draw without moving (not correct.)
I should not have responded - and certainly not given away my strategy.
You are correct - but I wasn’t trying to create a ‘White to play and mate in two moves’ problem! 
In the position I gave, 1. Kb6 also mates in two…
So if you want a White to play and mate in two moves problem featuring getting out of check by giving mate, here’s an ugly one (but it does have a double check 
)
White: Kf6; Rg5; Ba5, Bh4; Na8
Black: Kd8; Rb6; Bc8; Nf5, Nd6; pa7, pd7
- Rg8+ Ne8++ 2. Kxf5 1-0
Sorry, I didn’t mean to impugn your ability as a problem composer - I just noticed that when playing against the computer on Apronus, it didn’t play 1…Nb8+ in your first example. I like your resolution.
In case anyone was wondering, the maximum number of consecutive checks in a tournament game is apparently 6: Chess records - although sadly, Tim Krabbe hasn’t updated the site in several years (NETA: I see now that he has recently made a couple of posts about the Carlsen-Niemann controversy - taking Niemann’s side - but that’s all), so it’s possible this has since been surpassed.
And speaking of ugly positions, the record in a composed position is 54 (scroll down to item #387):
Last night I saw an episode of House, the title is The Jerk. It started with a high school kid playing in a tournament. He was badgering the opponent, including explaining what moves he would make to win. I didn’t think you could do that (It’s been years since I played in a tournament).
Then he started beating his opponent over the head with the clock. Obviously not permitted.
In one of the Kasparov-Deep Blue matches (the first one, that Kasparov ultimately won), he used a similar offering-a-draw tactic. Deep Blue wasn’t actually programmed to decide whether to accept a draw; that task fell to the programming team. Kasparov was under time pressure, and offered a draw, because he knew that the programmers would eventually decline, but that they would take significant time to come to that decision. Which evened up the time, and gave Kasparov the breathing room he needed to eventually win.
I personally consider most of chess’s decorum and etiquette rules to be a little silly, but I understand their purpose.
My first and only formal tournament match was as part of my high school chess team as a freshman. I was nervous and intimidated already, but it didn’t help matters that my opponent’s father(?) positioned himself behind me. 
I could see the other kid make eye contact with him. This included condescending faces when I made bad moves, which caused further bad moves.
As I understand it now, the kid’s dad standing behind me is not allowed, but I didn’t know that then, and even if I had I would have been to shy to complain. The experience was so demoralizing I left the team.
No doubt - it’s going to lead to an inaccurate time record!
This thread has been a fascinating read. I had no idea the etiquette was so strict and enforced so carefully.
Just thought of something…is it rude, at any level, to play a clearly lost game to checkmate rather then resigning?
Myself I always play to checkmate unless I 'm furious with myself.
It’s usually considered so, yes. Chess might be the only competitive game for which that’s true: In most sports, it’d be considered unsportsmanlike to concede before the bitter end.
Where things get complicated is when a game is “clearly lost” and the “losing” player keeps playing, but then the “winning” player makes a blunder that turns it back around.
It’s considered a patzer play if it is clear that the player with the overwhelming advantage is obviously capable of prosecuting the win to the end. You never see it at the higher ranks, but it is not uncommon at the lowest ranks. I never forced play to the “bitter end” myself, but when I encountered it in an opponent, I tended to make it enjoyable (to me) by piling up my material advantage, slowly grinding the opponent’s pieces away, then harrying the King (as a cat plays with a mouse) until administering the mate. I tried to make it painful.
On the other hand, if there is any possible winning or drawing path, I would play on until that path was closed off. Such a path does not include hoping that the opponent will blunder pieces back to me several times, though.
I was doing that a few days ago and accidentally stalemated.
One semi-exception that I do find fun to watch is Magnus Carlsen, who in a relatively safely drawn position might still grind out another 20 moves. I watched him do that the other day during a rapi match, and one of the grandmasters commenting on the live stream said that that wasn’t unusual for Carlsen, and he would sometimes just do it (the grandmaster thought) to wear down an opponent in a multi-game match.
Obviously in rapid there might also be some small probability of an opponent making an error in a drawn position, and Magnus is confident enough to assume he won’t be the one doing it.
All the way through this I’m recalling a Little Annie Fanny where she was playing chess and fell out of her dress when she leaned over the board touching (well, contacting) both rooks. Her opponent had a double meltdown trying to figure which piece she had to move and a topless Annie.
Interestingly this answers my very first post. It’s ‘unethical’, according to Graham Burgess to spout ‘oh my god’ in pretending to blunder. And, of course, as others have said against the rules to try and verbally distract an opponent
That Wiki quote sounds an awful lot like a Mornington Crescent rule.