You Should Be Forced to Resign - Chess Forums - Page 10

Petermh5

Apr 7, 2013

0

#181

markae wrote:

4 hours ago · Quote · #49

falcogrine

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.

Petermh5

Apr 7, 2013

0

#182

falcogrine wrote:

One thing that suprises me is that when peter said Kasparov was the best player in the world, nobody argued with it. Probably because they focused on the other parts. Still, it is amazing that petermh5 of all people would be able to create a consensus about who was the best chess player,

First you argue against a very well developed and multipurpose rule which has virtually no cons (as evidenced by the absolute lack of a refutation in over 11 pages in comments on this thread), then you plan on disputing a simple, factual, proven-time-and-time-again statement? Figures. I suppose next you will try to tell me that water moves up when not being acted upon by an external force.

baddogno

Apr 7, 2013

0

#183

Best troll thread ever! Well played Petermh5.

Petermh5

Apr 7, 2013

0

#184

Meanwhile, I'm called a troll for actually coming up with some constructive criticism and a well-backed suggestion and successfully defending it in probably one of the the longest threads on Chess.com to ever happen.

macer75

Apr 7, 2013

0

#185

Petermh5 wrote:

blueemu wrote:

Petermh5 wrote:

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

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

>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.

ur joking right?

macer75

Apr 7, 2013

0

#186

11 pages of comments in 13 hours! Looks like a hot topic.

BMeck

Apr 7, 2013

0

#187

It is illogical... How are sacrifices a flaw in chess if they help you win? If your opponent accepts them, then there is the flaw. You probably played a game where someone sacrificed a lot of pieces, you thought you had the game won, then you lost and felt embarrased because you fell for it. You compared our play to Kasparov's which just shows how ignorant you are...

landwehr

Apr 7, 2013

0

#188

yes

macer75

Apr 7, 2013

0

#189

Petermh5 wrote:

Meanwhile, I'm called a troll for actually coming up with some constructive criticism and a well-backed suggestion and successfully defending it in probably one of the the longest threads on Chess.com to ever happen.

One of the longest threads you say?

Ever heard of Daeth?

EricFleet

Apr 7, 2013

0

#190

Petermh5 wrote:

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.

If you were a real chess player, you would know that the only points in chess are 1-0, 1/2-1/2 and 0-1.

If you do not like the rules of chess, please take up another game like tic-tac-toe.

Petermh5

Apr 7, 2013

0

#191

Alivallo wrote:

Delayed Fisher Time...

Implement -Fisher Time after 20 moves or 30 moves.

designed to eliviate those who win by throwing material at the last minute.

The only thing you can do about time wasters is CheckMate!

You will find these poor loser and rule manipulation tactics all the way to world champion level. Take a look at any Chess Wold champion history and controversy... Fisher notably argured the rules, Kasparov started a whole new organization. Capablanca as well as others simply wanted to create a new game altogether!

caugh, tisk...960

You're exactly right. But why settle for such a faulty, unsound, defective game when so little can make all the difference? My rule would solve most of it I believe, and with some modifications, it could be even better. Thank you for your support.

kiwi-inactive

Apr 7, 2013

0

#192

Alivallo wrote:

Delayed Fisher Time...

Implement -Fisher Time after 20 moves or 30 moves.

designed to eliviate those who win by throwing material at the last minute.

The only thing you can do about time wasters is CheckMate!

You will find these poor loser and rule manipulation tactics all the way to world champion level. Take a look at any Chess Wold champion history and controversy... Fisher notably argured the rules, Kasparov started a whole new organization. Capablanca as well as others simply wanted to create a new game altogether!

caugh, tisk...960

Checkmate is the solution

Petermh5

Apr 7, 2013

0

#193

macer75 wrote:

One of the longest threads you say?

Ever heard of Daeth?

That guy was a troll.

Petermh5

Apr 7, 2013

0

#194

EricFleet wrote:

Petermh5 wrote:

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.

If you were a real chess player, you would know that the only points in chess are 1-0, 1/2-1/2 and 0-1.

If you do not like the rules of chess, please take up another game like tic-tac-toe.

You're ignorant of the real truth.

PlonkyPenguin

Apr 7, 2013

0

#195

sometimes it needs a deep understanding of the endgames if you want to win a game where you are ahead in material. I've seen much stronger players than the OP mess up in the endgame. And recently my totally won game ended with a draw because the opponent tricked me into it (at least this will never happen to me again^^)

If I'm the weaker side and know I should lose, I play on mostly (unless my defeat is totally clear or I can't stand this game anymore). I just think: "you wanna win this game - then show me you can do it". My last OTB game I didn't resign and it ended drawn. Later I analyzed it with a strong player and he said "you where able to hold a draw in THIS position? respect!"

Petermh5

Apr 7, 2013

0

#196

PlonkyPenguin wrote:

sometimes it needs a deep understanding of the endgames if you want to win a game where you are ahead in material. I've seen much stronger players than the OP mess up in the endgame. And recently my totally won game ended with a draw because the opponent tricked me into it (at least this will never happen to me again^^)

If I'm the weaker side and know I should lose, I play on mostly (unless my defeat is totally clear or I can't stand this game anymore). I just think: "you wanna win this game - then show me you can do it". My last OTB game I didn't resign and it ended drawn. Later I analyzed it with a strong player and he said "you where able to hold a draw in THIS position? respect!"

Well, if your opponent was not down more than five points, perhaps what he did was and should have been legal. Maybe. I'd need some context. The same goes for your scenario. Thank you for your support.

PlonkyPenguin

Apr 7, 2013

0

#197

Well, if your opponent was not down more than five points, perhaps what he did was and should have been legal. Maybe. I'd need some context. The same goes for your scenario. Thank you for your support.

in this game I drew it was about 3 points, but in the game I should have won I was ahead more than 5 points. and a few month ago, one of our club players (he is rated over 2200) had a lead of 8 points (at least it's what fritz said) and the game ended...well, make an educated guess :)

so you see, never give up too early. Not everyone knows their endgames and everyone can make bad mistakes, even GM's

chessgdt

Apr 7, 2013

0

#198

Markle

Apr 7, 2013

0

#199

Petermh5 wrote:

blueemu wrote:

Petermh5 wrote:

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

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

>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.

Grandmasters sacrifice all the time, and win so you are telling me they are wrong and play this cutesy bullshit well we should all play such cute chess, your rule is a bunch of crap, end of story

chessgdt

Apr 7, 2013

0

#200

Oh, and even this is not the longest thread at chess.com http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/the-last-one-to-post-is-the-biggest-fan-of-chesscom (Come and join the endless battle) LOL