So, you should be forced to resign when you are down 5 points?
You Should Be Forced to Resign
Sort:
too bad trolls can't be forced to resign from many a thread...
why is it the dumber the post the more activity it gets? I guess I sort of answered my own question because I'm contributing... 
Petermh5 wrote:
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.
About Kasparov I have no doubt. Are you sure you can always win the game when you have some advantage? I don't feel so strong, so there is no problem for me if someone continue fighting until checkmate. Also don't forget about stalemate possibility!
Petermh5 wrote:
blueemu wrote:
Petermh5 wrote:
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.
Is this guy serious? Honestly, can't tell if he's joking...
ThreePawnSac wrote:
why is it the dumber the post the more activity it gets? I guess I sort of answered my own question because I'm contributing...
its sad i know. sometimes the village idiot with an internet connection provides the best comedy though. he plays fried fox and probably eats it too.
I heard that fried fox is quite good grilled
Ziryab wrote:
cleocamy wrote:
I'd like to see some mechanism whereby you can force resignation in a hopless case. There have been many times where I had a forced mate in one and my opponent just refused to move with half an hour left on the clock and only one legal move. There wasn't anything to think about. He just wanted to run down the clock and waste my time.
Colt has been making such mechanisms since 1836. I would not advocate forcing resignation, however. It is better to let your opponent continue to live with his or her delusions.
I prefer Smith and Wesson.
This thread has passed 1000 comments, and the trollmaster that started the thread hasn't even needed to stoke the fire to keep it going.
Bravo!
If it is a widespread problem with more than one person, you might prefer the Manhattan Project over such puny earlier suggestions.
a thought popped into my mind about this thread, sacrifices, and how peter and ubi have said that it is such a flaw in the game. they argued that when you go behind in points with a sac, you should be forced to resign. based on their *argument* [albeit quite flawed and amusing] this should not apply when one is ahead in points and one sacs to get a # becasue you would not fall 5 pts behind.
they should therefore start a new thread on the *evils* of of the sacrifice and try to have it banned from chess as well. heh heh. that would be fun to watch.
maybe someone will discuss game theory, competition, expectations and outcomes, and how these are major strategies that apply to competitions and life in general.
markae wrote:
a thought popped into my mind about this thread, sacrifices, and how peter and ubi have said that it is such a flaw in the game. they argued that when you go behind in points with a sac, you should be forced to resign. based on their *argument* [albeit quite flawed and amusing] this should not apply when one is ahead in points and one sacs to get a # becasue you would not fall 5 pts behind.
they should therefore start a new thread on the *evils* of of the sacrifice and try to have it banned from chess as well. heh heh. that would be fun to watch.
maybe someone will discuss game theory, competition, expectations and outcomes, and how these are major strategies that apply to competitions and life in general.
This is not a problem, because when you are ahead in points, then your opponent will be resigning.
The logic is not only irresistible, my math has not even been challenged, let alone disproven. And that, mind you, without me even setting the requirement that one have graduate level work in mathemeatics to be able to participate in the discussion. Let us say that the math proofs I have given on this topic a few pages ago should not even be addressed unless you have advanced work in probability and statistics, information theory and signal processing, number theory, logic, combinatorics, and topology.
LongIslandMark wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
markae wrote:
a thought popped into my mind about this thread, sacrifices, and how peter and ubi have said that it is such a flaw in the game. they argued that when you go behind in points with a sac, you should be forced to resign. based on their *argument* [albeit quite flawed and amusing] this should not apply when one is ahead in points and one sacs to get a # becasue you would not fall 5 pts behind.
they should therefore start a new thread on the *evils* of of the sacrifice and try to have it banned from chess as well. heh heh. that would be fun to watch.
maybe someone will discuss game theory, competition, expectations and outcomes, and how these are major strategies that apply to competitions and life in general.
This is not a problem, because when you are ahead in points, then your opponent will be resigning.
The logic is not only irresistible, my math has not even been challenged, let alone disproven. And that, mind you, without me even setting the requirement that one have graduate level work in mathemeatics to be able to participate in the discussion. Let us say that the math proofs I have given on this topic a few pages ago should not even be addressed unless you have advanced work in probability and statistics, information theory and signal processing, number theory, logic, combinatorics, and topology.
Okay - I'm with you until you got to topology - where does that come in? (briefy if you can to another Math major).
Understanding how the value of 5 points is arrived at can only be done by analyzing chess in all the different possible board permutations wrapped around common topographical problems, and reducing it to an average.
For example, with different sacrificial values, map the board to a cylinder, a moebius strip, or a torus, and see if there is still a win.
This gets away from dealing with one concrete board, and lets us map out simultaneously many different settings in design space.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, how in the world has chess survived all these centuries, with all these "flaws"?? Incredible!!
Aha! A Conquistador sock puppet (I knew it!).
bsharpchess wrote:
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, how in the world has chess survived all these centuries, with all these "flaws"?? Incredible!!
I have no idea how it has staggered along? But obviously its on borrowed time unless we can save chess from itself.
Well, obviously the first step is admitting you have a problem.
If people had any sense they would redesign the chess board so it fits on a doughnut. This would solve all our current problems.
I'd like to see some mechanism whereby you can force resignation in a hopless case. There have been many times where I had a forced mate in one and my opponent just refused to move with half an hour left on the clock and only one legal move. There wasn't anything to think about. He just wanted to run down the clock and waste my time.
Colt has been making such mechanisms since 1836. I would not advocate forcing resignation, however. It is better to let your opponent continue to live with his or her delusions.