It is not about winning, it is about learning. Since most of the times I can still learn something, I will not resign.
You Should Be Forced to Resign
Sort:
Drawn endgames would be lost with this troll rule. Ex my diagram
the above endgame is standard. It is a draw.
Here is a proof:
White could make progress only if his king is able to approach.
To win time for such approach, White needs to force the black king to occupy the square c1.
Whites only attempt to do so, is to apprach the Black king with zigzag checks of the queen. Indeed, white can reach the same situation with the only difference that the white queen is on b4 with a check.
Then follows Ka2. If then Qc3 Kb1, Qb3+, Black is not obliged to play Kc1, but he can play Ka1, because Qxc2 is stalemate !
Because of this detail, White cannot win time for an approach of his king.
White has only a repetition of moves in the final position, with Qc3+ (or Qa3+) Kb1, Qb3+ Ka1!
A rule of this nature must be implemented, although some minor modifications might be desirable.
Petermh5 wrote:
You should automatically lose the game should you ever be down more than five points for two full turns.
That would make for some interesting sacs. A lot of sacs require more than two moves for mate.
Petermh5 wrote:
markae wrote:
4 hours ago · Quote · #49
Excellent job Falcogrine on your example and the game to prove it.
and if peter doesn't like it if his opponents don't resign if a stale wind blows, he can resign and move on to another game or he take his mouse and click elsewhere on the intarwebs.
and peter if you can get the rules of chess to bow to you, can you do something about that pesky gravity thing too that keeps water moving down.
Surely you are joking? The example was an invalid, hacked one. No counterexample exists to my statement -- at least not one that is legal.
tell me one illegal move i made...
Every player of FIDE elo 1900 knows that the above endgame is a draw.
so dont make out of this a justification for a NEVER GIVE IN.
What you suggest is in fact bad habit. It is not rare in the US. Because there is not such a long chess tradition as in Europe, and because taking a defeat graciously is not taught in the 'american way of life'.
falcogrine wrote:
Petermh5 wrote:
markae wrote:
4 hours ago · Quote · #49
Excellent job Falcogrine on your example and the game to prove it.
and if peter doesn't like it if his opponents don't resign if a stale wind blows, he can resign and move on to another game or he take his mouse and click elsewhere on the intarwebs.
and peter if you can get the rules of chess to bow to you, can you do something about that pesky gravity thing too that keeps water moving down.
Surely you are joking? The example was an invalid, hacked one. No counterexample exists to my statement -- at least not one that is legal.
tell me one illegal move i made...
There was more than one.
Apr 7, 2013
0
#210
This thread is not about accepting draws... In that above example peter is saying white should win based on the fact white has a queen to blacks pawn
No, he takes the above example as a vehicle to justify his 'never give up' policy.
Apr 7, 2013
0
#212
Thats why underneath it says "So you are saying black is going to lose this easily drawn position because of your rule? XD"
Petermh5 wrote:
falcogrine wrote:
Petermh5 wrote:
markae wrote:
4 hours ago · Quote · #49
Excellent job Falcogrine on your example and the game to prove it.
and if peter doesn't like it if his opponents don't resign if a stale wind blows, he can resign and move on to another game or he take his mouse and click elsewhere on the intarwebs.
and peter if you can get the rules of chess to bow to you, can you do something about that pesky gravity thing too that keeps water moving down.
Surely you are joking? The example was an invalid, hacked one. No counterexample exists to my statement -- at least not one that is legal.
tell me one illegal move i made...
There was more than one.
give me a move number and the move, and tell me why it is illegal
I'm beginning to think the purpose of this thread was to break some sort of record for longest thread. Just think about it: the name is highly provokative, and the OP makes sure to respond regularly to keep the thread alive. In any case, I'm on board :P Lets make this the longest thread in chess.com history.
Apr 7, 2013
0
#215
If you can't play the moves and win a position with +5 advantage in material, you don't deserve to win it.
So ? I still dont get the point of the hole discussion.
Certainly, if Black is not in timetrouble, then he can resign. Because the Ba1 is a little imprisoned, he can play a move or two, but only to see how black gets rid of this temporary disharmony.
But Qb1 Bc3 , or Qc4 Ne2+ and the bishop a1 is free again, should convince him, that it is over.
I am talking here about the level of 1800 or 1900 elo, in Europe.
how is a game where a queen is hanged possibly be a "masterpiece?"
funny. I took Peter more serious, I was wrong.
coolsrinath911 wrote:
how is a game where a queen is hanged possibly be a "masterpiece?"
he's either sarcastic or referring to peter's opponent. I think both
Queen vs. Rook or Bishop Pawn on the 7th rank is very good example :)