You Should Be Forced to Resign

Sort:
RogueFirefly

That would depend on which position you are in.

geoffalford

mykingdomforanos,

You say: "mating Kings just sounds so gay, unless you're a bird."

I am trying to be polite, but my patience is sorely tested. So I will be blunt.

If you do not accept the objectives of chess - to mate the King and win - please play another game like Scrabble, where the winner is the player with the most points!

falcogrine

If we're talking about games with points, try playing golf. That will screw up your head Smile

Ziryab

I think that we settled the issue on page 38.

StrategicPlay

Trolls brought it up again. 

Ubik42
mykingdomforanos wrote:

when you look with troll-eyes, you only see trolling.

Agreed. On the one hand. On the other hand...there sure are troll posts everywhere, arent there?

varelse1
Ubik42 wrote:

So, to sum up, you should resign when you are down 5 points in material?

To sum up, Ubik shouldn't have skipped out on math class. Now it's come back to haunt him!

timbeau

I blame this argument on certain people confusing arithmetic with mathematics.
(I realize that might not make a lot of sense but why oh why do Americans call Arithmetic, "Math" ! I dare not say more...)

Actually, if points had not been arbitrarilly allotted to pieces in the first place, this stupid, idiotic, counting argument wouldn't be happening. 
If you think Chess should be decided with ARITHMETIC, you cheapen the game.

timbeau

And all you geniuses who reckon you should resign if you're down a piece are arrogant and unimaginative. As for those who complain about "wasting time"... its a bloody game for gods sake. If your time is so precious, go build a pyramid or write a symphony or just get back to your pornography! 

Irontiger
timbeau wrote:

As for those who complain about "wasting time"... its a bloody game for gods sake. If your time is so precious, go build a pyramid or write a symphony or just get back to your pornography! 

1- you think building a pyramid is a rational use of time ? (not mentioning porn, I wonder why you chose such a strange example)

2- you perfectly illustrate the point that, although it is everyone's choice to waste one's time playing out a desperate position, the main problem of non-resigners is that they consider that their evaluation of the worth of their time should also be their opponents' . Certainly, they have to be ready to play the game for a long time if needed, but they do not have to accept your view that their time is free.

danthemasterman

you dont stop when your loved ones reached her, you know what im saying.

macer75
danthemasterman wrote:

you dont stop when your loved ones reached her, you know what im saying.

No I don't. I'm very confused.

Ubik42
timbeau wrote:

And all you geniuses who reckon you should resign if you're down a piece are arrogant and unimaginative. As for those who complain about "wasting time"... its a bloody game for gods sake. If your time is so precious, go build a pyramid or write a symphony or just get back to your pornography! 

Ok I disproved - mathematically - this particular argument back on pages 19-21. Before jumping into a thread you need to read each and every argument and counter argument, otherwise you will bring up points long ago shown to be in error.

Also you need to read my proof regarding rating level vs. efficacy of argumentation, where I evolved a formula relating you online rating with your % chance of being correct (weighing conjecture over evidence and logic by the usual factor of 7 to 1)

macer75

There's a new thread called 3 reasons Why "Online Chess" ratings deserves no repsect that by now has gotten 7 pages of comments in 8 hours! If ppl continue slacking on this thread, then that one will catch up quickly! So start posting ppl!

nameno1had

call on thor and lets get this over with....but how can you win if you dont play ? ......

Pre_VizsIa
Ubik42 wrote:Ok I disproved - mathematically - this particular argument back on pages 19-21. Before jumping into a thread you need to read each and every argument and counter argument, otherwise you will bring up points long ago shown to be in error.

Also you need to read my proof regarding rating level vs. efficacy of argumentation, where I evolved a formula relating you online rating with your % chance of being correct (weighing conjecture over evidence and logic by the usual factor of 7 to 1)

Hilarious!

ajian
Timothy_P wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:Ok I disproved - mathematically - this particular argument back on pages 19-21. Before jumping into a thread you need to read each and every argument and counter argument, otherwise you will bring up points long ago shown to be in error.

Also you need to read my proof regarding rating level vs. efficacy of argumentation, where I evolved a formula relating you online rating with your % chance of being correct (weighing conjecture over evidence and logic by the usual factor of 7 to 1)

Hilarious!

Laughing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

finns

best ever troll thread

Irontiger

Come on guys, this is slowing down before we even reached the 1000th post.

We need to speed up a bit the posting.

Sam97

LOL this is the most Troll based forum ever....

This forum topic has been locked