Go back
refusing to let the game end

refusing to let the game end

Only Chess

J
Irresponsible Quoter

0 games mating

Joined
04 Nov 06
Moves
23536
Clock
17 Dec 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Five pages? What??!?!?!? I could've been playing, but I've spend ten minutes reading through this thread. What a waste. Oh. Now it's pushing six pages. 😉

W

Joined
17 Dec 06
Moves
0
Clock
17 Dec 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

w
Chocolate Expert

Cocoa Mountains

Joined
26 Nov 06
Moves
19249
Clock
17 Dec 06
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

HERE IS GENUINE PROOF WHY A LOSING PLAYER SHOULD NEVER RESIGN IF HE/SHE DOESN'T WANT TO...THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TRYING TO (AND HOPEFULLY ACHIEVING) DRAW

See my recently drawn game below for an example...

I was losing pretty badly but I didn't immediately resign...instead I slowly built up a way to force perpetual check...

If there is ANYTHING immoral about what I did, then PLEASE send me a message...

Game 2891300

F

Joined
11 Nov 05
Moves
43938
Clock
17 Dec 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wittywonka
HERE IS GENUINE PROOF WHY A LOSING PLAYER SHOULD NEVER RESIGN IF HE/SHE DOESN'T WANT TO...THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TRYING TO (AND HOPEFULLY ACHIEVING) DRAW

See my recently drawn game below for an example...

I was losing pretty badly but I didn't immediately resign...instead I slowly built up a way to force perpetual check...

If there is ANYTHING immoral about what I did, then PLEASE send me a message...

Game 2891300
With this game you really prove that it is always worthwhile to continue a game. If you have a slightest chance of not losing, then you should take it.

In this game you showed that you are the superior player. You turned a lost game to a draw that your opponent didn't know how to prevent. You are the moral winner, even if it was a draw.

To aim for a draw is *never* wrong. Anyone trying to prove otherwise shows lack of knowing the rules of chess.

d

Joined
26 Sep 05
Moves
52930
Clock
17 Dec 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Jamin
Five pages? What??!?!?!? I could've been playing, but I've spend ten minutes reading through this thread. What a waste. Oh. Now it's pushing six pages. 😉
I've also wasted ten minutes reading this.

Yet I must admit, I find lightfallsup's posts strangely addictive. They have a charming idiocy about them! 😀

DF
Lord of all beasts

searching for truth

Joined
06 Jun 06
Moves
30390
Clock
17 Dec 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wittywonka
HERE IS GENUINE PROOF WHY A LOSING PLAYER SHOULD NEVER RESIGN IF HE/SHE DOESN'T WANT TO...THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TRYING TO (AND HOPEFULLY ACHIEVING) DRAW

See my recently drawn game below for an example...

I was losing pretty badly but I didn't immediately resign...instead I slowly built up a way to force perpetual check...

If there is ANYTHING immoral about what I did, then PLEASE send me a message...

Game 2891300
i've had a look at this game and what is clear is that after move 20 you were obviously lost and persisted in dragging the game out and exploiting a loophole. After your queen was lost you got even more unsporty and tried to obtain infinite checks with your Rooks that were designed to carry on the game forever. You should be ashamed of yourslef. This was very unfair as a true sportsman would play a deliberately inferior move.

B

Joined
06 Aug 06
Moves
1945
Clock
17 Dec 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Well no one over here seems to be reading Lightfallsup posts. He's being pretty clear that it is just his opinion and that he doesn't think repetition to be illegal, rather annoying and unethical.

Sure to every experienced chessplayer this seems like idiocy, but if it is the way he thinks about it, let him be. It's not like he's trying to force you to stop enforcing the rule, he was merely asking if the majority on this site played with the rule.

To lightfallsup, yeah, many people on this site use the rule to go for a draw. It's good that u are asking people if they use the rule in advance of the game, if see no problem if you both choose to disregard it.

NS
blunderer of pawns

Rhode (not an)Island

Joined
17 Apr 04
Moves
24785
Clock
17 Dec 06
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Check this out. Ahead by a whole rook, about to promote a pawn, and then my moronic 32nd move, which allows him a perpetual check opportunity.

Game 2818366

Of course, I see that I don't have to let him draw the game this way. I can simply give up the rook, end the perpetual check, and still be able to force the win.

But clearly, what I should have done was keep blocking the check with Qf7, let him get the perpetual, and then go whining in the chess forum that my opponent wasn't letting me have fun.

NS
blunderer of pawns

Rhode (not an)Island

Joined
17 Apr 04
Moves
24785
Clock
17 Dec 06
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Barts
Sure to every experienced chessplayer this seems like idiocy, but if it is the way he thinks about it, let him be. It's not like he's trying to force you to stop enforcing the rule, he was merely asking if the majority on this site played with the rule.
No, he was not simply asking if the majority on this site play that way. He was inferring that what we play here is an entirly different brand of chess on this site, and he was condemming it. Perhaps you missed his statement that he doesn't expect everyone to play to his "standards". "Standards" is a way of assigning values to these different styles of chess, and he's clearing saying that his way is better. He says we're not listening to him, when he has yet to listen to any of the numerous people who have tried to explain to him that this is a perfectly acceptable way to force a draw. If you weren't supposed to be able to force a draw by perpetual check, then it would be against the rules, like it is in Xianggi (Chinese Chess).

DF
Lord of all beasts

searching for truth

Joined
06 Jun 06
Moves
30390
Clock
17 Dec 06
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

N

The sky

Joined
05 Apr 05
Moves
10385
Clock
17 Dec 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
Ssshhh... The game is still in progress. I found it very tempting to point out the obvious, too, but as it's obviously not obvious for them, we shouldn't.

DF
Lord of all beasts

searching for truth

Joined
06 Jun 06
Moves
30390
Clock
17 Dec 06
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nordlys
Ssshhh... The game is still in progress. I found it very tempting to point out the obvious, too, but as it's obviously not obvious for them, we shouldn't.
Naughty me! Slapped wrists. I'll get a forum ban if I continue such unacceptable behavour.

I am feeling very contrite.

Diet Coke
Forum Vampire

Sidmouth, Uk

Joined
13 Nov 06
Moves
45871
Clock
17 Dec 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
Naughty me! Slapped wrists. I'll get a forum ban if I continue such unacceptable behavour.

I am feeling very contrite.
Very contrite?

Imagine being labelled with that for a name.

m
Y.N.W.A

Athens

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
24586
Clock
17 Dec 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

I HATE perpetual check being used against me.

Do i use perpetual check against others when the oppotunity arises?
YES.

Swings and roundabouts, he's got you in this game, no doubt you'll get the opportuninty to get another opponent in perpetual check.

w
If Theres Hell Below

We're All Gonna Go!

Joined
10 Sep 05
Moves
10228
Clock
17 Dec 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Barts
Well no one over here seems to be reading Lightfallsup posts. He's being pretty clear that it is just his opinion and that he doesn't think repetition to be illegal, rather annoying and unethical.

Sure to every experienced chessplayer this seems like idiocy, but if it is the way he thinks about it, let him be. It's not like he's trying to force you to stop enforcing the rule, he was merely asking if the majority on this site played with the rule.
you mean, when someone has a stupid opinion, posts it in a discussion forum and keeps insisting there's nothing wrong with it because "it's just his opinion", everyone should just shut up?

well, it ain't gonna happen.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.