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.
that's not the hypocritical part, the hypocritical part is you continuing to play when down so much material, you should have resigned.
His cat is a fighter!It never resigns.
Generally I think my opponents tend to resign too early if anything. I have even had opponents in over the board tournament games resign when they had a winning position. And I myself have come from behind and won games where I was down a queen. One should not underestimate the ability of "A" players including myself to blunder provided there is sufficient material on the board.
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.
that's not the hypocritical part, the hypocritical part is you continuing to play when down so much material, you should have resigned.
Was the poor kitty high on catnip when he hung the queen?
so who is better at chess, peter or his cat? seeing as he lets his cat play for him, the answer is obvious.
Wow what a bad idea
"Boxing matches do not have a system of points. "
Boxing matches have a system of points. If the match end without KO the judges use their puntuations to decide the result of the match.
You can have a fight totally win but in the last round... a lack of concentration a punch conect well and KO.
Chess is similar in this, you can have a lot of advantatge but in the last part of the game, a lack of concentration and KO.
My cat is pretty good at Chess, but he is often a prick and does not resign. That is why I deleted his account on this website and that is why he plays on my account when he gets the opportunity. I can't really be held accountable for that kind of thing.
Kasparov once made a double rook sacrifice, where black resigned 14 moves after because he was left with rook vs queen.
Train some chess and use chesscube. My experience is much more resigning, or at least not waiting 3 minutes for their time to run out
Page 15. Not a refutation in sight. If not for a few trolls, I'd say that my suggestion has seen few responses that were not highly enthusiastic and positive. I even received an encouraging message from a staff member who was talking about my thread, so I will probably go to the chess.com admin and propose the rule change. With the support we've had from this thread, alone, we can probably get something done about these imperfections on an otherwise very fun, original game.
Kasparov once made a double rook sacrifice, where black resigned 14 moves after because he was left with rook vs queen.
Train some chess and use chesscube. My experience is much more resigning, or at least not waiting 3 minutes for their time to run out
Agreed, one should resign when down a rook (or the equivalent of a rook: five points). Thank you for your support. I also very much agree that there should be much more resigning and not stalling for the time to run out because a poor loser is sore about being bested.
i hope you wins!
Thank you for your support.
viktor means that kasparov's opponent resigned 14 moves after kasparov sacrificed 2 rooks because kasparov was up a queen to a rook with pawns remaining in a very clearly won position.
Thank you for your support. I too believe that Kasparov is the GoAT (greatest of all time), and that playing against Kasparov in a rook versus queen scenario is useless and a waste of time. The stakes of a game of Chess are surely higher at the professional level than of a game here at chess.com, but Kasparov's opponent should have accepted defeat twelve or so moves sooner and resigned. Thank you for pointing out this example, my rule really would have came in handy here.
Petermh5 wrote:
Page 15. Not a refutation in sight. If not for a few trolls, I'd say that my suggestion has seen few responses that were not highly enthusiastic and positive. I even received an encouraging message from a staff member who was talking about my thread, so I will probably go to the chess.com admin and propose the rule change. With the support we've had from this thread, alone, we can probably get something done about these imperfections on an otherwise very fun, original game.
Please, someone tell me he's joking... Are you serious right now? I think it's beyond doubtful that an admin would entertain such a petty and arbitrary rule. Why shouldn't people be forced to resign? Because they have the right to do whatever they want. So what if it took some ten or twenty extra moves to checkmate? This is merely a trivial inconvenience.
Checkmate ends the game. Any chess player should be ready to checkmate his or her opponent, no matter how long it takes. Someone who gets too impatient to checkmate shouldn't be playing.
Regarding the comments on sacrificing, do you know that chess is a game? No one cares if it simulates real-world armies or whatever you have in mind. Okay, maybe you care, but that's your issue, not ours. Just because you're impatient doesn't mean everyone else needs to conform to your viewpoint.
Believe it or not, we agree on one count: we both are annoyed by people playing on in an obviously lost position. However, making a rule as ridiculous as yours would make the game much less interesting.
Kasparov once made a double rook sacrifice, where black resigned 14 moves after because he was left with rook vs queen.
Train some chess and use chesscube. My experience is much more resigning, or at least not waiting 3 minutes for their time to run out
Agreed, one should resign when down a rook (or the equivalent of a rook: five points). Thank you for your support. I also very much agree that there should be much more resigning and not stalling for the time to run out because a poor loser is sore about being bested.
Kasparov sacrificed around 10(!) points, and only 14(!) moves after, his tactic was over. Of course all games should be played as long as a player want to. The better you get, the faster does your opponent give up. Just gain some endgame technique (You don't need alot when up a piece), and show your opponents why they SHOULD resign.
By the way, I DO NOT support you.
This is the absolute dumbestest rule ever. It is so dumb that, if implemented, would ruin chess. Absolutely ruin it.
And this guy is a troll....Most likely one of those parham teens from Florida.
Petermh5 wrote:
Page 15. Not a refutation in sight. If not for a few trolls, I'd say that my suggestion has seen few responses that were not highly enthusiastic and positive. I even received an encouraging message from a staff member who was talking about my thread, so I will probably go to the chess.com admin and propose the rule change. With the support we've had from this thread, alone, we can probably get something done about these imperfections on an otherwise very fun, original game.
Please, someone tell me he's joking... Are you serious right now? I think it's beyond doubtful that an admin would entertain such a petty and arbitrary rule. Why shouldn't people be forced to resign? Because they have the right to do whatever they want. So what if it took some ten or twenty extra moves to checkmate? This is merely a trivial inconvenience.
Checkmate ends the game. Any chess player should be ready to checkmate his or her opponent, no matter how long it takes. Someone who gets too impatient to checkmate shouldn't be playing.
Regarding the comments on sacrificing, do you know that chess is a game? No one cares if it simulates real-world armies or whatever you have in mind. Okay, maybe you care, but that's your issue, not ours. Just because you're impatient doesn't mean everyone else needs to conform to your viewpoint.
Believe it or not, we agree on one count: we both are annoyed by people playing on in an obviously lost position. However, making a rule as ridiculous as yours would easily make the game of chess extinct.
Thank you for your support. It is true that Chess is not for everyone, but I believe that Chess is truly a wonderful game with an encouragingly high skill ceiling. I believe that Chess is a game that you truly must work at to be good, and the high intensity work that Chess demands of people if they wish to be good is not for everyone. But, hard work builds character and one's capacity for hard work really defines one's self, and I believe that the hard work factor is one of the many marvels of Chess. I am sorry if you do not feel this way.
Kasparov once made a double rook sacrifice, where black resigned 14 moves after because he was left with rook vs queen.
Train some chess and use chesscube. My experience is much more resigning, or at least not waiting 3 minutes for their time to run out
Agreed, one should resign when down a rook (or the equivalent of a rook: five points). Thank you for your support. I also very much agree that there should be much more resigning and not stalling for the time to run out because a poor loser is sore about being bested.
Kasparov sacrificed around 10(!) points, and only 14(!) moves after, his tactic was over. Of course all games should be played as long as a player want to. The better you get, the faster does your opponent give up. Just gain some endgame technique (You don't need alot when up a piece), and show your opponents why they SHOULD resign.
Thank you for your support. It is true that Kasparov is undisputedly the greatest player of all time, but that does not mean Kasparov held a perfect record. Kasparov may have been bested and been down ten points in just the first fourteen moves, and he would have been beaten just like any other patzer down that many points in so few moves. Everyone is equal on the Chess board -- it is what you do with your pieces that make the game.
Kasparov exploited just as many loopholes in the game of Chess as one would expect the greatest player of all time would have to. It is unfortunate that Chess could not have been a better game to truly accomodate the awesome skill of Kasparov when he was in his prime so many centuries ago. That is why I am working to better Chess.
Again, thank you.
Petermh5 wrote:
chessman1504 wrote:
Petermh5 wrote:
Page 15. Not a refutation in sight. If not for a few trolls, I'd say that my suggestion has seen few responses that were not highly enthusiastic and positive. I even received an encouraging message from a staff member who was talking about my thread, so I will probably go to the chess.com admin and propose the rule change. With the support we've had from this thread, alone, we can probably get something done about these imperfections on an otherwise very fun, original game.
Please, someone tell me he's joking... Are you serious right now? I think it's beyond doubtful that an admin would entertain such a petty and arbitrary rule. Why shouldn't people be forced to resign? Because they have the right to do whatever they want. So what if it took some ten or twenty extra moves to checkmate? This is merely a trivial inconvenience.
Checkmate ends the game. Any chess player should be ready to checkmate his or her opponent, no matter how long it takes. Someone who gets too impatient to checkmate shouldn't be playing.
Regarding the comments on sacrificing, do you know that chess is a game? No one cares if it simulates real-world armies or whatever you have in mind. Okay, maybe you care, but that's your issue, not ours. Just because you're impatient doesn't mean everyone else needs to conform to your viewpoint.
Believe it or not, we agree on one count: we both are annoyed by people playing on in an obviously lost position. However, making a rule as ridiculous as yours would easily make the game of chess extinct.
Thank you for your support. It is true that Chess is not for everyone, but I believe that Chess is truly a wonderful game with an encouragingly high skill ceiling. I believe that Chess is a game that you truly must work at to be good, and the high intensity work that Chess demands of people if they wish to be good is not for everyone. But, hard work builds character and one's capacity for hard work really defines one's self, and I believe that the hard work factor is one of the many marvels of Chess. I am sorry if you do not feel this way.
... I think you missed the boat regarding my post by a mile.... I don't feel like posting it again, so I'll summarize.
Checkmate ends the game and sacrifices give the game a valued dimension. That's really it.
Kasparov once made a double rook sacrifice, where black resigned 14 moves after because he was left with rook vs queen.
Train some chess and use chesscube. My experience is much more resigning, or at least not waiting 3 minutes for their time to run out
Agreed, one should resign when down a rook (or the equivalent of a rook: five points). Thank you for your support. I also very much agree that there should be much more resigning and not stalling for the time to run out because a poor loser is sore about being bested.
Kasparov sacrificed around 10(!) points, and only 14(!) moves after, his tactic was over. Of course all games should be played as long as a player want to. The better you get, the faster does your opponent give up. Just gain some endgame technique (You don't need alot when up a piece), and show your opponents why they SHOULD resign.
Thank you for your support. It is true that Kasparov is undisputedly the greatest player of all time, but that does not mean Kasparov held a perfect record. Kasparov may have been bested and been down ten points in just the first fourteen moves, and he would have been beaten just like any other patzer down that many points in so few moves. Everyone is equal on the Chess board -- it is what you do with your pieces that make the game.
Kasparov exploited just as many loopholes in the game of Chess as one would expect the greatest player of all time would have to. It is unfortunate that Chess could not have been a better game to truly accomodate the awesome skill of Kasparov when he was in his prime so many centuries ago. That is why I am working to better Chess.
Again, thank you.
Wow Garry was in his prime centuries ago, i knew he was getting older but i didn;t know he was a couple of hundred years old. You need to get your chess history straight. By the way your idea is about the stupidest thing i have ever heard.
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.
that's not the hypocritical part, the hypocritical part is you continuing to play when down so much material, you should have resigned.