You Should Be Forced to Resign

You should automatically lose the game should you ever be down more than five points for two full turns.

You shouldn't be forced to play out a won game tens of moves down to the checkmate just because your opponent is being a prick.

There were numerous games that were resigned to Kasparov when Kasparov's opponent was only down one pawn, and Kasparov is the best player in the world, so we should be following his example.

So if you sac your Queen for a mate in four... you automatically lose?

Thats crazy. I just won a game where I was down 5 - 8 point for 3 moves and ended up checkmating my opponent. 

Sometime it is a strategy, sometimes (especially at your level and my level) the opponent blunders away the game.

so positional compensation, theoretical draws (N+P v rook, opp. bishop endgames, fortresses), and long term play are all just thrown away?

>saccing your queen for a mate in four

Sacrificing is but a deeply-rooted flaw in the game of Chess. If you have to sacrifice pieces to win without getting a payout within AT LEAST two moves, then you really don't deserve to win. Wake up and smell the roses: that kind of cutesy bullshit would never hold up in the real world.

Theory is theory. "Positional compensation" is crap. There is no situation where having more pieces is worse than having less. 

lol

You know, it is very hard to detect sarcasm in forums because you can't see bedy language, tone, or expressions. So, haha, good joke, but you can stop now.

If you can't checkmate your opponent in two moves after they sacrifice their Q then YOU don't deserve to win. You have a huge material advantage, you should be able to win....

Are you guys serious or joking....

But where are you getting this "two moves" standard from?  What if the king is safely castled, with two rooks and his knight around him?

> "There is no situation where having more pieces is worse than having less. "

Black to move loses. Remove any of the six Black pieces from the board, and he wins instead.

no, is the forum creator joking or disconnected from reality?

From his post of saying that "If you have to sacrifice pieces to win without getting a payout within AT LEAST two moves,".

It could be more moves for all I care, just not so much more that these rude sore-losers who don't resign can get away with wasting the winner's time. Two should suffice, though. How is anything decided? Why does water move down? etc.

Huh what?  Please explain?

Well, it also doesn't help that a large percentage of the chessplaying world looks (and acts) like this:

rsava used two-move rule to cleverly parody the thread creator, who arbitrarily created the two-move rule. Nobody knows where he got it though...

@AndyClifton I see your point.