I didn't play that game, I was looking at something else when my cat hopped up on my keyboard and messed up my game for me just because he was upset that I wasn't giving him that much attention.
You Should Be Forced to Resign
Sort:
jbj wrote:
Just trying to show how Peter is being an hypocrite with that game he played.
very successfully shown!
BMeck wrote:
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
The pawn, which will either be taken and result in a stalemate, or promote into a queen, thus removing the 8 point material difference.
Petermh5 wrote:
I didn't play that game, I was looking at something else when my cat hopped up on my keyboard and messed up my game for me just because he was upset that I wasn't giving him that much attention.
Of course he makes an excuse.
Petermh5 wrote:
A rule of this nature must be implemented, although some minor modifications might be desirable.
Here's my suggestion of a modification: you lose if you're going to be down an infinite number of points (i.e. the king) after your opponent's next move.
Perhaps Petermh5's idea of forced resignation could become another "variation" game. Just as Fischer felt there were problems with standard chess becoming a memorisation of openings and led to the 960 variation playable here. But I think anyone who thinks chess needs to be changed, first becomes at least a GrandMaster, if not World Champion!
TBentley wrote:
Petermh5 wrote:
A rule of this nature must be implemented, although some minor modifications might be desirable.
Here's my suggestion of a modification: you lose if you're going to be down an infinite number of points (i.e. the king) next turn.
Good one!
Apr 7, 2013
0
#229
The rules of chess state that the game is won by the player whose opponent is checkmated, or whose opponent has lost on time, or whose opponent decides to resign.
I NEVER resign, and I advise everyone else not to, as well. Can't tell you how many of the few times I've lost massive material and still won. Especially if the game is a blitz game, you don't resign, because time management is a huge part of the game.
If you consider it a waste of time to have to actually display a little skill and deliver checkmate, then you were the one wasting your opponent's time. If you don't want to spend X amount of time playing a single game, don't play a game in which each side has X/2 amount of time for their moves. Otherwise, you signed up for it, so suck it up or resign, cry-baby.
I play chess for enjoyment. I enjoy seeing an artful checkmate. If you're ahead and can win, checkmate me. If on the other hand you have no patience for such things, I recommend tic-tac-toe.
That said, I almost always resign if I'm obviously screwed and the opponent has demonstrated that he will not likely throw away an easy win, i.e., he's not a spaz with an imaginary cat problem.
And if I have a decisive advantage yet the opponent keeps playing? Good. I need practice on my endgame. We all do.
No more whining. I hereby ban it.
Fun is permitted. In fact, fun will be enforced with an iron fist.
Apr 7, 2013
0
#231
Actually, I do sometimes resign, but only when my opponent makes it uber-obvious that every move is marching me closer to checkmate, or in cases where we are low on time, and I think my opponent REALLY deserves the win because of some brilliant play or dogged resistance, I'll go ahead and throw a few resignations out that way, as well. I never resign to rude people - ie, people who can't seem to accept that the game isn't over when all my pieces are taken, it's over when I'm mated.
baddogno wrote:
Best troll thread ever! Well played Petermh5.
Meant as the most sincere compliment, sir. My apologies if you have taken offense. Most troll threads would have degenerated into acrimony by now but you have patiently and logically defended an absurd position. Should a Troll Hall of Fame ever be established here at chess.com I believe you will have a prominent place.
Petermh5 escribió:
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.
I hope you are just trolling.
Instead of telling that we should resign if we are one pawn down just because Kasparov did that, first try to achieve the level of Kasparov. Good luck with that!
As for your "You should automatically lose the game should you ever be down more than five points for two full turns"...it is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a while.
Are you a little kid or you are simply a very arrogant and immature player? Or maybe both things?
I totally agree with you buddy!Let us both fly down to the FIDE Headquarters and tell them about your revolutionary rule.On second thought,we probably shouldn't,Because laughing continuously can sometimes result in death.We wouldn't want the FIDE officilas to die now,would we?
mykingdomforanos wrote:
but if dey wer gon, wud chess be better ?
Mybe ar mybe naut,it wud bee a saad lauss af hyumen laif thaugh.
mykingdomforanos wrote:
but if dey wer gon, wud chess be better ?
Off Topic.. But if correct spelling and grammer were gone would English be better?
mykingdomforanos wrote:
Likhit1 wrote:
mykingdomforanos wrote:
but if dey wer gon, wud chess be better ?
Mybe ar mybe naut,it wud bee a saad lauss af hyumen laif thaugh.
but if feeda wer gon, de GMs cud party like de party rokkerz
Thaid run auta mouney prity suun thaugh.
I don't agree with this suggestion.................however, look at all the responses it produced!! Some type of award should be given for this suggestion. I do agree with the author that this is very annoying to have to play out an obviously won game. I, on the other hand, have lost "won" games more times than I'd like to admit.
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.
There is a current thread with more than 10k comments.