Forums

You Should Be Forced to Resign

Sort:
dragonair234
dragonair234
Closed: Inactive
Apr 7, 2013
0
#261

I think it's true that if you've got zero chance of winning OR drawing that resignation is polite in many ways. But if there's even a miniscule chance of winning or drawing, resigning cheats both players of a good whole chess game. I think you're saying if this isn't the case, then I agree with you. Players need to resign when it's their time to resign, and likewise. 

Petermh5
Petermh5
Apr 7, 2013
0
#262
chessman1504 wrote:

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.

Thank you for your support.

Petermh5
Petermh5
Apr 7, 2013
0
#263
dragonair234 wrote:

I think it's true that if you've got zero chance of winning OR drawing that resignation is polite in many ways. But if there's even a miniscule chance of winning or drawing, resigning cheats both players of a good whole chess game. I think you're saying if this isn't the case, then I agree with you. Players need to resign when it's their time to resign, and likewise. 

Absolutely; our thought processes are one and the same. This is precisely what my rule would rectify.

falcogrine
falcogrine
Apr 7, 2013
0
#264
Petermh5 wrote:
dragonair234 wrote:

I think it's true that if you've got zero chance of winning OR drawing that resignation is polite in many ways. But if there's even a miniscule chance of winning or drawing, resigning cheats both players of a good whole chess game. I think you're saying if this isn't the case, then I agree with you. Players need to resign when it's their time to resign, and likewise. 

Absolutely; are thought processes are one and the same. This is precisely what my rule would rectify.

so if you are down 5 points, even if you have a winning attack or stalemate or fortress, you have no chance of winning?

Petermh5
Petermh5
Apr 7, 2013
0
#265
falcogrine wrote:
Petermh5 wrote:
dragonair234 wrote:

I think it's true that if you've got zero chance of winning OR drawing that resignation is polite in many ways. But if there's even a miniscule chance of winning or drawing, resigning cheats both players of a good whole chess game. I think you're saying if this isn't the case, then I agree with you. Players need to resign when it's their time to resign, and likewise. 

Absolutely; are thought processes are one and the same. This is precisely what my rule would rectify.

so if you are down 5 points, even if you have a winning attack or stalemate or fortress, you have no chance of winning?

If you were using the revised, adapted rule set that I have suggested, then yes, you are absolutely right. Thank you for your support.

polydiatonic
polydiatonic
Show your flair!
Apr 7, 2013
0
#266

This thread is rediculous, lets keep it real so for cookies and milk please come to this thread:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/quotforce-resignsquot-thank-god-we-finally-have-a-thread-like-this

:)

falcogrine
falcogrine
Apr 7, 2013
0
#267
Petermh5 wrote:
falcogrine wrote:
Petermh5 wrote:
dragonair234 wrote:

I think it's true that if you've got zero chance of winning OR drawing that resignation is polite in many ways. But if there's even a miniscule chance of winning or drawing, resigning cheats both players of a good whole chess game. I think you're saying if this isn't the case, then I agree with you. Players need to resign when it's their time to resign, and likewise. 

Absolutely; are thought processes are one and the same. This is precisely what my rule would rectify.

so if you are down 5 points, even if you have a winning attack or stalemate or fortress, you have no chance of winning?

If you were using the revised, adapted rule set that I have suggested, then yes, you are absolutely right. Thank you for your support.

no, not support. tell your idea to Jay and Erik (owners of chess.com) and then I'll see what they say. if you can convince them, then maybe they can convince me! please post their comments about your idea

Petermh5
Petermh5
Apr 7, 2013
0
#268
danny_57 wrote:

I can't believe we're even having this argument when other factors besides point counting play into chess.  There is a complexity to the game that goes beyond such a simplistic line of reasoning as point counting.  Sacrificing pieces for position is an old old part of the game.  This line of reasoning on point counting is flawed logic.

No scenario exists where a larger army is worse than a smaller army. Gifting pieces to your opponent is not a viable strategy. Thank you for your support.

falcogrine
falcogrine
Apr 7, 2013
0
#269
Petermh5 wrote:
danny_57 wrote:

I can't believe we're even having this argument when other factors besides point counting play into chess.  There is a complexity to the game that goes beyond such a simplistic line of reasoning as point counting.  Sacrificing pieces for position is an old old part of the game.  This line of reasoning on point counting is flawed logic.

No scenario exists where a larger army is worse than a smaller army. Gifting pieces to your opponent is not a viable strategy. Thank you for your support.

examples: all previously posted games. rambo. guerrilla warfare. an army of better individual quality. smothered mate. etc.

falcogrine
falcogrine
Apr 7, 2013
0
#270
danny_57 wrote:

Flawed logic.  All I can say.  I don't support your opinion.  I respect it, but you want to change a game to suit your opinion and I do not agree with that.

no no no, you can respect him for having an opinion, but how can you respect the opinion itself???

Pashakviolino
Pashakviolino
Apr 7, 2013
0
#271

People stop answering to this idiot.

He is just a Troll and is seeking for attention. We are all playing his game. Let's just ignore it.

Petermh5
Petermh5
Apr 7, 2013
0
#272
danny_57 wrote:

Flawed logic.  All I can say.  I support your opinion.  I respect it, but you want to change a game to suit your opinion and I do not agree with that.

Thank you for your support. I agree that there is quite certainly a logical fallacy at a fundamental level to believe that a stronger army would be less valuable than a weaker one. With sufficient support, perhaps something can be done to fix Chess up into a more perfect game.

Petermh5
Petermh5
Apr 7, 2013
0
#273
Pashakviolino wrote:

People stop answering to this idiot.

He is just a Troll and is seeking for attention. We are all playing his game. Let's just ignore it.

Please do not comment in my thread with that kind of horrible, derogatory hatespeech. I'm trying to contribute something to the game of Chess. And what are you doing? Thank you for your support.

falcogrine
falcogrine
Apr 7, 2013
0
#274
Petermh5 wrote:
Pashakviolino wrote:

People stop answering to this idiot.

He is just a Troll and is seeking for attention. We are all playing his game. Let's just ignore it.

Please do not comment in my thread with that kind of horrible, derogatory hatespeech. I'm trying to contribute something to the game of Chess. And what are you doing? Thank you for your support.

sooo much irony here

lorddagon2012
lorddagon2012
Show your flair!
Apr 7, 2013
0
#275

Petermh5 greatest troll of all time!!!!!!!

falcogrine
falcogrine
Apr 7, 2013
0
#276

In real life, the team with more man does not always win the war, rather it is how they work as a group. So similarly, you can have less pieces, but if you coordinate your pieces better, you win just as in real life. It is valid strategy to sacrifice pieces to better coordinate your own pieces and cause your opponent pieces to be uncoordinated.

nameno1had
nameno1had
Apr 7, 2013
0
#277

Mikhail Tal just rolled over in his grave and said to kiss his @$$...

.... and I could hear it all the way over here...

Then Petrosian replied, you should learn how to play chess instead of complaining about your short comings...

falcogrine
falcogrine
Apr 7, 2013
0
#278
nameno1had wrote:

Mikhail Tal just rolled over in his grave and said to kiss his @$$...

.... and I could hear it all the way over here...

Then Petrosian replied, you should learn how to play chess instead of complaining about your short comings...

those are my two favorite players of all time.

riteilu
riteilu
Apr 7, 2013
0
#279

Bogoljubov vs Alekhine 1922.

Also - some of the people I've played (especially in my first few games) seemed to be pretty young kids. So, yeah, I gained a more than 5 point lead against them pretty easily without their gaining any strategic advantage, and they didn't resign because they're still learning the ropes of the game. Didn't bother me in the least; I had plenty of time. I don't really understand the mindset that it's "rude" not to resign, unless you're playing at a very high level.

Ubik42
Ubik42
Apr 7, 2013
0
#280

I have to agree with the OP. When someone is down in material by 3-5 points, they should just resign.

I havent seen any successful arguments against him, just a lot of trolling.

I think people that disagree with Petermh5 are either:

1. Perpetual losers who want to get back in the game via some cheapshot.

2. Trolling for attention.

3. Enjoy getting revenge from a legitamate victory by forcing the game to be played out.

These are the only possiblities I can see. There really is no arguing against his position, it is too solid. If I see you all continue to repeat the same futile, failed arguments, then I may write to the staff and see what can be done about all the trolling.

This forum topic has been locked