You Should Be Forced to Resign

It's a stupid idea, that's a valid counterargument. First, you'll be changing chess rules, then it wouldn't be chess anymore, it'd be a variation (like chess960).

And second, chess.com can't afford having a top engine to check every freaking move on every freaking game being played on the site. Do you have ANY idea what kind of resources chess.com would need to do that?

It doesnt need a top engine, you are checking pure material, not positional evaluations. I suspect a poorly trained second assisstant bookeeper armed with an abacus could do it.

I too, thought it was stupid, but over time the OP and his allies have come up with irrefutable and unaswerable mathematical proofs of their theses.

Pure material?? That's your way to evaluate who's winning?

I think the mathematical proofs are given some where around page 25. Really, if you don't have training in advanced mathematics, it would be difficult to follow let alone attempt a disproof. It seems settled, really.

To my great surprise, I might add.

Mathematical proof! haha.

The advocates have math and graphs, charts, long complex derivations, statistics, analysis, and proof. So far, the opponents have produced mostly literary responses, and, surprsingly, no graphs or empirical data at all! I dont understand how you can support a point without evidence, logic, reason, and science, and just ask people to take it on faith.

And how did it go? How many chess.com admins responded on this "brilliant" (read stupid) idea? None, because it's stupid, is not chess.

Well it seems the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I think you are one of only 2 that have expressed some reservations and a desire to move slowly rather than quickly at implementation.

Can we count you as being onboard now?

i blundered my queen in an ongoing game about the fourth or fifth more....i think i might win it.....

ooh,i was 9 points down on a game,but i did not resign.

The only mathematical proofs I recall seeing came from a guy named "Ubik42",  meaning you were convinced by yourself....

At move 16, I was down two pieces. My poor opponent had to suffer my delusions for many moves longer.

Here's a nice little quote that's relevant to the discussion:

"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself" - Sun Tzu

By employing sacrifices you forfeit pieces you don't need or squares you do not need to protect for pieces your opponent needs or squares your opponent needs to protect. The advantage lies not in how many pieces you have, but how many active pieces you have vs how many active pieces your opponent has.

I know most of you guys are kidding, but for those who claim this rule has no refutation, look above. This is not conjecture, this is fact.

This is clearly incorrect. There are many games in chess in which piece sacrifices are made. One should also consider the fact that in gambit opennings and many middle-game positions strategic sacrafices are made only to improve piece coordination/pawn structure/other stratigical factors... One of many games with such sacrifices 

"This" is clearly ambiguous. I think the grammarians call it an "unclear antecedent".

This tends not to matter to most in an informal setting such as this.

I am sure glad I didn't buy into the logic of the thread's creator or his followers and then resign. It would have been one hell of a hit to my rating and my morral.

As it stands, it was a good lesson for me to have to learn to do more with less. It also taught my opponent the value of having an extra attacker in the center, early in a game, in which your queen is very vulnerable at that stage. With no mates quickly possible, or serious threats that can be made, the queen is more of a target, and not always an awesome attacker, with no vulnerabilities.

I simply took my opponent's queen out of the game, after losing my own and developed a crushing attack.

I recently have been involved in a game in which I sacrifed material a few times playing the Traxler Counter Attack. I was able to neutralize a rook, pinned into a corner for a large portion of the game. I was down a rook, but so was my opponent in a sense. I am currently fighting for a draw in that game, still down material. As black, sometimes it is all you can hope for against a stronger player. If you are going to be fighting an uphill battle with black against a stronger player, why not dictate the action, get him/her out of their comfort zone and who knows what might happen ?

It was be a travesty to chess if someone couldn't play lines as fun as the Traxler because, some variations would put you down 5 or more pawns.

What an idiotic idea, " force resignation ". If it is a forced loss, one can't resign in the first place.

Also, when someone says "It is raining", to what does the "it" refer to?

He is quite convincing. On the plus side, at least you can't claim he was a sockpuppet.

Beats me.