Forums

You Should Be Forced to Resign

Sort:
waffllemaster
waffllemaster
Apr 6, 2013
0
#81

Checkmate is silly too.  In real life there's just a new king.  You can make a pawn a king.  It should be like Petermh5 says, last man standing.  Once your opponent runs out of pieces they lose.

AlCzervik
AlCzervik
Apr 6, 2013
0
#82
waffllemaster wrote:
AlCzervik wrote:
Petermh5 wrote:

People are just posting stupid pictures that have nothing to do with the proposed rule. I suppose the lack of any valid argument against it in four pages of posts should be proof enough that my rule has no downside and even serves to fix more of the game of Chess than I had intended.

You will be GM soon.

Pfft.  I heard GM isn't so great.  Pretty much anyone can be a GM.

I read the same thing, and, by reading innovative ideas like players being forced to resign, I will be there soon.

If they don't resign, I'll just make an offer they can't refuse.

Petermh5
Petermh5
Apr 6, 2013
0
#83
falcogrine wrote:

I meant the staff of chess.com. And, also, there have been several great reasons against your argument; 1- a chess game can be won without material equality - see diagrams in previous comments- and 2 - there are sacrifices and combinations (one of my favorites is Damiano's mate -research it) that force a win at a material loss over more than two moves. 3- Many drawing techniques, such as opposite bishop endgames and fortresses, can hold a draw even though down material

And also, 4- if you blunder material, what stops your opponent from likewise blundering 3 or 4 moves later? At amateur chess, it is very common for material to shift dramatically throughout the game.

1. That's what this rule would be fixing.

2. ^

3. ^

4. Sorry if I'm not familiar with falcogrine-tier Chess where you and your opponent have a tea party and randomly gift pieces to eachother.

falcogrine
falcogrine
Apr 6, 2013
0
#84

Peter, if you don't like chess, invent your own game. Then you can make the rules whatever you want.

AlCzervik
AlCzervik
Apr 6, 2013
0
#85
Mainline_Novelty wrote:

By that logic, any purchase in real life is flawed, because giving people money is not a "winning strategy"

Pay me and you will be a winner (cash only, though).

falcogrine
falcogrine
Apr 6, 2013
0
#86

"4. Sorry if I'm not familiar with falcogrine-tier Chess where you and your opponent have a tea party and randomly gift pieces to eachother."

I'm 300-400 points above you.

Ubik42
Ubik42
Apr 6, 2013
0
#87
falcogrine wrote:
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.

You know, it is very hard to detect sarcasm in forums because you can't see bedy language, tone, or expressions. So, haha, good joke, but you can stop now.

Oh yeah, its sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

hard to see sarcasm in print.

Petermh5
Petermh5
Apr 6, 2013
0
#88
falcogrine wrote:

Peter, if you don't like chess, invent your own game. Then you can make the rules whatever you want.

I'm on Chess.com posting on the forums, giving constructive criticism, trying to help the devs fix up their own game. Something wrong with that?

Ubik42
Ubik42
Apr 6, 2013
0
#89

Obvious troll is obvious. I don't need to read pages 2 - here.

Petermh5
Petermh5
Apr 6, 2013
0
#90
Ubik42 wrote:

Obvious troll is obvious. I don't need to read pages 2 - here.

ad hominem. Looks like we'll keep stride right through the fifth page with not even a half-decent attempt at a refutation of my argument to be seen, yet.

whirlwind2011
whirlwind2011
Show your flair!
Apr 6, 2013
0
#91

Wow. I have seldom seen or heard of a suggestion of such horrible merit.

As has already been stated and diagrammed, even in only the first two pages of comments, many thrilling sacrifices forcing mate would no longer be feasible as a result of such a poorly-thought-out, hackneyed, pointless rule.

@OP: Sorry! Try again.

Petermh5
Petermh5
Apr 6, 2013
0
#92
whirlwind2011 wrote:

Wow. I have seldom seen or heard of a suggestion of such horrible merit.

As has already been stated and diagrammed, even in only the first two pages of comments, many thrilling sacrifices forcing mate would no longer be feasible as a result of such a poorly-thought-out, hackneyed, pointless rule.

@OP: Sorry! Try again.

Perhaps you should give the thread a more careful, meticulous read. My rule would precisely be preventing that kind of opportunist, loopholey play.

blueemu
blueemu
Show your flair!
Apr 6, 2013
0
#93
Petermh5 wrote:

I'm on Chess.com posting on the forums, giving constructive criticism, trying to help the devs fix up their own game. Something wrong with that?

Unfortunately, the chess "devs" have been dead for at least 1200 years. You'll need a better internet connection to get in touch with them.

AlCzervik
AlCzervik
Apr 6, 2013
0
#94
whirlwind2011 wrote:

@OP: Sorry! Try again.

You probably shouldn't have written that.

falcogrine
falcogrine
Apr 6, 2013
0
#95
whirlwind2011 wrote:

Wow. I have seldom seen or heard of a suggestion of such horrible merit.

As has already been stated and diagrammed, even in only the first two pages of comments, many thrilling sacrifices forcing mate would no longer be feasible as a result of such a poorly-thought-out, hackneyed, pointless rule.

@OP: Sorry! Try again.

after page two, people realized that he refused to acknowledge their refutations and it was a better use of their time to post pictures... so here we are with lots of pictures filling the pages

falcogrine
falcogrine
Apr 6, 2013
0
#96

By the way, what exactly do you have against sacrifices or long-term combinations?

Ubik42
Ubik42
Apr 6, 2013
0
#97
falcogrine wrote:
whirlwind2011 wrote:

Wow. I have seldom seen or heard of a suggestion of such horrible merit.

As has already been stated and diagrammed, even in only the first two pages of comments, many thrilling sacrifices forcing mate would no longer be feasible as a result of such a poorly-thought-out, hackneyed, pointless rule.

@OP: Sorry! Try again.

after page two, people realized that he refused to acknowledge their refutations and it was a better use of their time to post pictures... so here we are with lots of pictures filling the pages

Oh, so I missed pictures. Well now I am almost tempted to read the missing pages.

And don't even bother with the queen sac refutation, you are not dealing with someone serious in case you havent clued in yet. You are dealing with trollus maximus.

Ubik42
Ubik42
Apr 6, 2013
0
#98

What sort of pornography do we have top post to lock up the dumbth thread.

TheRussianPatzer
TheRussianPatzer
Apr 6, 2013
0
#99

Why is anybody taking the OP seriously? This is one of the most obvious troll threads I've seen in a while. Are we chess players really that autistic?

Ubik42
Ubik42
Apr 6, 2013
0
#100

Does reading this thread make you stupider in real life?

This forum topic has been locked