Originally posted by mnelsonI think the admins were sparing you from an ugly pummeling. I'll say it a gain; you got played, you got served, you got punked now go away.
I started a thread on how the repetitive move type draw is CRAP, as seen here:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=4144913
...and everyone agreed. What happened to the thread? It was a great topic.
Originally posted by mnelsonI actually think mnelson has a point. And I would like to propose even an extension to his line of reasoning:
It's lame! It goes against the strategic brilliance that is chess.
It's like a soccer game that ends in 0-0 tie, or a race that finishes under a caution flag. WTF??
It's far less elegant than the stalemate. Some stalemates are 10x more clever than many checkmates.
I think that the person that forces the perpetual check should lose -- plain and simple. It's an unsportman-like ending.
I think that (listen carefully now) to win a game with material down is low and cheap! I hate to lose when I have more material than my opponent!
So whenever a pawn some piece is taken, even a tine pawn, should render a win! Why continue to play when under? Why not just lay down and give up? Statistics says that you tend to lose when under. So trying to win is just unsportmanlike.
This is the same line as mnelson has so he naturally agrees to this proposal. His example of a chicken draw when in perpetual is just an example. Stalemate and other cheat methods to draw or win is just the same thing.
So, in short, my proposal is: When up in material the opponent shouldn't be allowed to win, nor to draw!
(Is this irony? Yes it is, of course.)
Originally posted by FabianFnasTal is already squirming in his grave.
[b]I actually think mnelson has a point. And I would like to propose even an extension to his line of reasoning:
I think that (listen carefully now) to win a game with material down is low and cheap! I hate to lose when I have more material than my opponent!
So whenever a pawn some piece is taken, even a tine pawn, should render a win! Wh ...[text shortened]... pponent shouldn't be allowed to win, nor to draw![/b]
(Is this irony? Yes it is, of course.)[/b]
skeeter
It takes both sides to allow a perpetual. In the game of note the rook does not have to be taken by the bishop, that leads to the perpetual. And then the whiner could have resigned to avoid perpetual, he was completely complicit in the draw.
He should join the now famous Ben Mossberg in the whiner hall of fame.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=78776
Originally posted by mnelsonIt as no doubt removed because you cannot use the would c***!
I started a thread on how the repetitive move type draw is CRAP, as seen here:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=4144913
...and everyone agreed. What happened to the thread? It was a great topic.
and rightly so as there are impressionable young people on the site along with other who find such language unnecessary and offensive.
We are talking about Game 4144913 here.
23. ... BXf1?? is a blunder. 23. ... RXf1+, 24. RXf1 ... BXc2 wins for black.
Get over it. Black blundered and threw away a won game. If you did not realise that perpetual check or 3-fold repetition were part of the game you do now so avoid them next time (or use them to your advantage).
How many other rules are unfair, castling, en-passant, statemate, insufficient material? Perhaps it is unfair to ultilise a pin, a fork or a skewer! Perhaps the side with a K & N vs K should be deemed the winner. After all it is unfair to lose if you are a piece up.
You made a mistake and missed an elementary tactic. Get over it and don't make the same mistake again.
Originally posted by mnelsonThe perpetual was neither juvenille, cheap, nor lame. It was elementary, as you noted. Maybe you should find a way to increase your skill and learn how to not fall for "elementary" tactics, instead of whining like a spoiled nine-year-old.
Exactly! Elementary, juvenile, cheap, lame, whatever name you'd like to use.