Oh well, there go ten minutes of my life and about forty IQ points. 
You Should Be Forced to Resign
Sort:
Gil-Gandel wrote:
Oh well, there go ten minutes of my life and about forty IQ points.
What was that?
That was your life mate...
Do I get another one?
No, sorry, that was it 
Apr 7, 2013
0
#164
There should be a tax if you don't resign.
The no resigner tax.
5 Euros per move and/or 10 euros per check, whatever comes first.
There's a way to solve the Euro crisis. I'm a genius 
omg this thread nearly killed me.
Ridiculous idea, you poor chap.
Apr 7, 2013
0
#168
This is my reasons to don't adopt this rule:
Kasparov VS Topalov 1999 Wijk and Zee
Byrne VS Fischer 1956
Anderssen VS Kieseritsky 1851 (The inmortal Game)
This games and other brilliances never existed.
I can't imagine a referee stopping a boxing match because one contender is behind in the count or a referre stopping a basket match because one team are overwhelming the other.
Lengthen a chess game in a hopeless position is unfair and without manners. However we can't fight this with the use of a indiscriminate rule that in some case converts a brilliant game in a victim. The way to figth this is the same way to fight other bad behaviors, education.
Idiotic.
Apr 7, 2013
0
#170
Other reasons:
This rule destroy a part of endgame theory.
Players don't need know basic mates because in 2 moves they win. Two Knights Vs King would a win, the queen against 7th bishop pawn it would a win etc. If you queening and the other player need two chekcs to queening he lost the game, etc.
(sorry for my english)
Apr 7, 2013
0
#172
Petermh5 wrote:
You should automatically lose the game should you ever be down more than five points for two full turns.
You shouldn't be forced to play out a won game tens of moves down to the checkmate just because your opponent is being a prick.
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.
If we did this, Tal would be lower rated than I am!!
How many games have we seen him pull a win out of a position where he was down 5 points or more of material?
Apr 7, 2013
0
#173
Well, I could sac my rook here, and force a perpetual.
No, wait! I would check him twice, and lose to the 2-move rule, before I could check him once more, and draw with the 3-move rule.
Nevermind.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Oh my gosh. What a wonderful rule it is, indeed. Perhaps this might actually change the game, which hasn't been done in years! Splendid, sir. You deserve a reward for this mostly astonishing discovery, oh yes, indeed you do.
I'll start showing this thread to everyone, so as to enlighten their minds, as to how we should actually play chess. Forget those old, idiotic, and proven rules. These are far better, in terms of quality and hilarity.
Ye ol thread hast giveth thine, a splendid idea indeedeth.
JM3000 wrote:
I can't imagine a referee stopping a boxing match because one contender is behind in the count or a referre stopping a basket match because one team are overwhelming the other.
Lengthen a chess game in a hopeless position is unfair and without manners. However we can't fight this with the use of a indiscriminate rule that in some case converts a brilliant game in a victim. The way to figth this is the same way to fight other bad behaviors, education.
Boxing matches do not have a system of points. If they did, a translation of this rule would likely be necessary in boxing, although it would probably be significantly different.
Education won't keep sore losers from dragging out games to the end of the clock to mess with the rightful winner. I suggested this rule to alleviate that. The rule, by nature, would also eliminate a few other deeply seated flaws in Chess. Particularly, the so called "brilliant" play of handing pieces to your opponent and then exploiting loop holes to pull out a "win" over the deserved winner who has the far superior army and likely the far superior talent.
Both reasons (the reason just stated and the one I was targetting originally) would very much be in favor of those with true Chess skills. So if you're against my proposed rule, I think it is fairly obvious that you lack true Chess skills and this would only turn the scales against you, as they should be if my assumption is right.
varelse1 wrote:
If we did this, Tal would be lower rated than I am!!
How many games have we seen him pull a win out of a position where he was down 5 points or more of material?
I don't know how good you or "Tal" is, but if you're saying a substantial amount of this "Tal's" wins are coming from situations where he has, in truth, already lost the game, then you are likely better than him.
linuxblue1 wrote:
There should be a tax if you don't resign.
The no resigner tax.
5 Euros per move and/or 10 euros per check, whatever comes first.
There's a way to solve the Euro crisis. I'm a genius
Good intentions, but this seems rather unconventional and not viable. You can't really charge people for losing a friendly albeit competitive game, that would probably even interfere with gambling laws and such. Also who would the euros be paid to? Determining that would be a whole different problem. I'm very sorry, but I just can't see the mechanics working out in this idea. Perhaps some kind of punitive measures against sore losers or loophole exploiters could be used for a short bit while the transition to my rule is fully made. Thank you for your suggestion.
varelse1 wrote:
Well, I could sac my rook here, and force a perpetual.
No, wait! I would check him twice, and lose to the 2-move rule, before I could check him once more, and draw with the 3-move rule.
Nevermind.
Yes, you wouldn't be able to cheat or conjure up a draw from a lost game due to flaws in the game. Problem?
And Johnny, too!