I am planning on submitting my idea for a patent. It has received too much positive feedback to continue to ignore. People have made millions for coming up with ideas that had no where near the incredible reception that my idea has had.
lol. good luck!
Guess this thread can die down now.
wow, long post. btw, Godwin's Law, you lose.
Sorry, but you also lose, due to Godwin's Meta-Law: the first person to mention "Godwin's Law" loses.
aww :( is there a meta-meta law?
wow, long post. btw, Godwin's Law, you lose.
Sorry, but you also lose, due to Godwin's Meta-Law: the first person to mention "Godwin's Law" loses.
Unfortunately, you forgot about Godwin's amendment which implies that anyone who invokes Godwin's Meta-Law loses.
wow, long post. btw, Godwin's Law, you lose.
Sorry, but you also lose, due to Godwin's Meta-Law: the first person to mention "Godwin's Law" loses.
Unfortunately, you forgot about Godwin's amendment which implies that anyone who invokes Godwin's Meta-Law loses.
I sense a paradox...
wow, long post. btw, Godwin's Law, you lose.
Sorry, but you also lose, due to Godwin's Meta-Law: the first person to mention "Godwin's Law" loses.
Unfortunately, you forgot about Godwin's amendment which implies that anyone who invokes Godwin's Meta-Law loses.
I sense a paradox...
You mean dox dox ? or
now that you brought it up, I sense that too.
I suspected that
This thread is crazy. Peter ur idea would destroy chess. Put many people without a job and cause tons of people including me to give up chess.
I love how the troll didn't even respond to the NM who proved that this guy is nothing but a troll XD
well, there's no way he really could respond to that
This thread is crazy. Peter ur idea would destroy chess. Put many people without a job and cause tons of people including me to give up chess.
so crazy, and still under a tenth of a quarter of my 10,000 post goal
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.
I came across this thread a little late, and I'm sure others have been performing admirably, but I can't resist joining in.
Dear Petermh5:
Congratulations. Your comment showcases the greatest level of stupidity I have ever seen. I've been looking for the worst chess player in the world for a long time, but I think now I can confidently award you this trophy.
(image deleted)
I am having trouble even comprehending this statement. I really am. So according to you, any sacrifice that works, at any time, for ANY reason, is a "deeply rooted flaw" in the game of chess unless it is completed within two moves?
My question to you is: Just how much arrogance is required for a beginner (1400) such as yourself to accuse the entire game of chess as being flawed?
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.
Ignoring the hysterical part about automatically losing if ever down material, let us instead focus on the bolded lines.
You mention Kasparov, and use him as support for your claim that games should be automatically forfeit. But you fail to even comprehend the level of thinking that goes on in his games, and why his opponents resign when they are down a pawn.
Kasparov could give you rook odds, and still beat you. This simple hypothesis (which any player could deduce is true, from looking at your aforementioned posts) completely kills your arguement before it even begins.
But let's not stop there! No, in fact, I should point out that Kasparov himself had many brilliant games where he sacrificed material for long, drawn out, positional play. And yet, this is somehow a "flaw" in the game?
Rather, my good sir, it is this very notion of trading advantages back and forth (perhaps in the form of sacrifices) that makes chess so fascinating.
If you cannot understand this, then I wish you would do a favor to us all and take up tic-tac-toe. You will probably have less to complain about.
Thank you for your support, I wholeheartedly agree with every point you made.
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.
This is called testing the limits. Just how much can he say before people realize this is a troll thread?
about 17 pages ago
You know what, I think for the sake of keeping this thread alive I'm gonna start siding with the OP.
You know what, I think for the sake of keeping this thread alive I'm gonna start siding with the OP.
Thank you for your support.
up until a page or two ago, I had been following this thread because it was *interesting* and, at times, quite humorus. There were some good counter arguments and examples, and of course the humor. the OP increasingly continued to both ignore and/or totally fail to comprehend *any* of the points, analogies, other comments that were made (as well as failing to understand basic game theory and risk analysis). when the OP switched to banal responses and other infantile behaviors that would demean a 6-year-old, I went from enjoying this thread (and its many insightful posts) to being frustrated by the OP and this seems to be a consensus in the most recent posts.
alas, there is no joy in mudville for mighty casey has struck out.
count me as another +1 falcogrine.
wow, long post. btw, Godwin's Law, you lose.
Sorry, but you also lose, due to Godwin's Meta-Law: the first person to mention "Godwin's Law" loses.