So how can you force someone to resign? If you bestow a forced loss is it truly a resignation?
consider it a way of expressing your superiority.
Are you saying that if they don't follow the Peter rule, I get to use my baseball bat?
no you should'nt be froced to resign take a look at this.
I don't know what your point is, but that's a wrong argument.
1- Black is down more than 5 points the whole line, and ends up checkmated (proof that he should have lost, according to Peter's rule, duh).
2- 2.Qc4+ Rf7 3.Qxf7# is shorter.
This is superflous, I already proved the Peter rule some time ago. The argument is over.
You see? You see?? If Ubik had paid attention in math class back in High School, none of this would have happened!!
when one facepalm isn't enough:
Combined with the removal of the stalemate rule, we can mesh this rule in nicely.
Call, among others, any move which results in you having at least a 5 point deficit over a period of 2 moves illegal. Having removed the stalemate rule, if you cannot make a legal move, it is a automatic loss.
How does this sound?
Petermh5,
See Silman's annotated Tal games in Chessmentor. I think Tal would disagree with you. Silman provides examples of multiple Tal sacrifices (including a Queen sacrifice) to mate the opponent's King!
Of course, we are mere mortals and not near the dazzling Tal.
Petermh5,
Also look at the following, the game “G. Meinhardt vs. K. Fries” in Silman’s recent article “How to Play Against Old Guys, Pt. 1” (April 13). A Queen sacrifice leads to mate by White, albeit it was assisted by a tactical mistake by Black.
If you guys don't like chess so much, why play ? Why not go make your own game or own version and leave this one, that millions are happy to play, alone for the rest of us to enjoy ?
...or is that the problem, some of you are sick of seeing the rest of us enjoy ourselves... ? lol lol lol lol...
don't forget to breathe when lol-ing
don't forget to breathe when lol-ing
And be careful not to literally lmfao
I always get offended when someone types RAOTFLMAO....I have never seen anyone actually do it...
maybe a drunk's @$$, fall off of their stool...
TheGrobe wrote:
Public accusations of cheating are frowned upon. (In fact, they're outright forbidden).
nameno1had wrote:
hey grub, get your facts straight, i didnt say he cheated, i told him i was going to check....the behavior of some here is indicative of it....
TheGrobe wrote:
You never came right out and said it, but it would be hard to make any clearer an implication of it.
nameno1had wrote:
you were more accusatory in my opinion of me accusing, than i was of anyone.... i merely pointed out some interesting things i noticed....as i said, i will let staff be the judge....
Looks like staff agreed with me and Houdini on this one...Looks like Forrest was wrong about Lt. Dan having legs in this case...
...I wonder how many of the rest of you, here in group confession we can nab ?
You say:
Listen you guys, you're quoting Peter out of context. When the rules are flawed, you get flawed results. That's already established. And if a piece has to lay down it's life to win the battle, there's something wrong.
I do not think any of us are being nasty to Peter, or trying to quote him out of context.
What we are suggesting is the the primary objective in chess is to mate the opponent's King - not to count material points won or lost - and if a tactic becomes apparent which will achieve mate by forced moves, including a Queen sacrifice, then go for it!
Complementary to this, if you feel you are in a losing situation, but can achieve a draw by stalemate, then go for that. But often, stalemate occurs due to a tactical error by the attacker, moving a piece which does not check the King, but leaves that King in stalemate.
So, to sum up, you should resign when you are down 5 points in material?
That is ridiculous petermh5 what about sacs?
Sacs were discussed and disproven back on pages 20-28.
I only read the first page. So, was the OP being sarcastic?
no you should'nt be froced to resign take a look at this.
I don't know what your point is, but that's a wrong argument.
1- Black is down more than 5 points the whole line, and ends up checkmated (proof that he should have lost, according to Peter's rule, duh).
2- 2.Qc4+ Rf7 3.Qxf7# is shorter.
This is superflous, I already proved the Peter rule some time ago. The argument is over.