You Should Be Forced to Resign - Chess Forums - Page 19

Likhit1

Apr 9, 2013

0

#361

Nokkvi wrote:

I seriously hope Petermh5 is trolling because this is without a doubt the dumbest post I have seen since I started on chess.com. I'd really love if a admin could please close this thread due to the damage it could do if new chess players stumbled into this fortress of bullshit.

He is trolling ofcourse.I agree with you,this thread need to be locked to prevent the new guys from following his ideas and plans.

mattyf9

Apr 9, 2013

0

#362

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.

This could be one of the most ridiculous posts ever made on this website. Hey I have an idea. If an NFL team is down by 2 td's they should automatically be forced to forfeit.

bokek

Apr 9, 2013

0

#363

Should I find myself a pawn down against Kasparov, I'd also consider resigning

FM ViktorHNielsen

Apr 9, 2013

0

#364

I once sacrificed a rook (5 points) to get perpetual. This takes 4-5 moves. Therefor, I reject your whole idea. If you can't win a won position, I recommend checkers. Or maybe even Poker. This is just awkward!!!

If you quote my message with something like: ¨Thanks for the support¨ I will try to ban you. This thread is STUPID!!!

landwehr

Apr 9, 2013

0

#365

lets turn off this threaeds life support...now

ekorbdal

Apr 9, 2013

0

#366

Why add rules?

theMagicRabbit

Apr 9, 2013

0

#367

ekorbdal wrote:

Why add rules?

Because he has trouble forcing mate when he's a rook down.

timbeau

Apr 9, 2013

0

#368

And worships authority...

TheRussianPatzer

Apr 9, 2013

0

#369

ViktorHNielsen wrote:

I once sacrificed a rook (5 points) to get perpetual. This takes 4-5 moves. Therefor, I reject your whole idea. If you can't win a won position, I recommend checkers. Or maybe even Poker. This is just awkward!!!

If you quote my message with something like: ¨Thanks for the support¨ I will try to ban you. This thread is STUPID!!!

I agree, swindles like the one you described should not be allowed to continue. While I appreciate your recommendation to play checkers, I wouldn't be able to forgive myself for not fixing this weakness in an otherwise facinating game. Thanks for your support!

brisket

Apr 9, 2013

0

#370

At my level blunders happen the game can change in a heart beat.

macer75

Apr 9, 2013

0

#371

This is becoming the new Daeth thread!

macer75

Apr 9, 2013

0

#372

Time for me to do another parody...

falcogrine

Apr 9, 2013

0

#373

brisket wrote:

At my level blunders happen the game can change in a heart beat.

all other levels, too!

Ubik42

Apr 9, 2013

0

#374

So it seems we have reached consensus that chess.com should implement an auto resign if you are down 5 points in material as a result of this thread.

falcogrine

Apr 9, 2013

0

#375

Ubik42 wrote:

So it seems we have reached consensus that chess.com should implement an auto resign if you are down 5 points in material as a result of this thread.

I think that peter should present his idea to the chess.com owners. Our humble opinions as mere players of the game surely pale in comparison to the feedback that the staff, comprised of many masters, could give.

CyroFault

Apr 9, 2013

0

#376

brisket wrote:

At my level blunders happen the game can change in a heart beat.

True.

Sometimes those blunders go unnoticed, especially if they lead to some long line that gives a near certain win for either side.

JG27Pyth

Apr 9, 2013

0

#377

EricFleet

Apr 9, 2013

0

#378

We should lower the bar to one point. Any chess player worth his salt should win with an extra pawn.

falcogrine

Apr 9, 2013

0

#379

JG27Pyth wrote:

is this what you suggest peter does with his argument, or simply the most relevant post possible on this crazy thread?

falcogrine

Apr 9, 2013

0

#380

EricFleet wrote:

We should lower the bar to one point. Any chess player worth his salt should win with an extra pawn.

why stop there? If a player feels he has a positional advantage, his opponent should automatically lose