What happened to my 'repetitive move draw' th...

Originally posted by mnelson
Exactly! Elementary, juvenile, cheap, lame, whatever name you'd like to use.

Elementary means basic, juvenile means childish, cheap means less money
























and lame means you and your stinkin' thread!

Originally posted by mnelson
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.

It is bad sportsmanship to make the best move available?

I think there is indeed a case of poor sportsmanship here...

Originally posted by mnelson
[b]I started a thread on how the repetitive move type draw is CRAP, ...

First point. The law concerns a repetion of POSITION, not of moves,
so provided the same type of men are on the the same squares each time it does not matter what or how many intervening moves have been made.
Second point. The law takes account of such situations as that which occurred in RHP Game No. 2507347 and the associated thread
'Refusing to let the game end' (last post : 17 Dec '06 16:53). Here White moaned that Black was unjustifiably prolonging the game by checking repeatedly, implyimg that he should resign. In fact White had a simple win on his 48th, 50th, 52nd, 54th, 56th, and 58th moves, but allowed Black to draw by the 'Three Repetitions of Position' law; so this was a case where Black was justified in playing on as his opponent, despite all his complaining, apparently did not know how to win the game.

Originally posted by Essex 3
First point. The law concerns a repetion of POSITION, not of moves,
so provided the same type of men are on the the same squares each time it does not matter what or how many intervening moves have been made.
Second point. The law takes account of such situations as that which occurred in RHP Game No. 2507347 and the associated thread
'Refusing to let as his opponent, despite all his complaining, apparently did not know how to win the game.

Game 2507347

48, 50, 52, 54, 56 or 58. Qg3 wins immediately.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
Game 2507347

48, 50, 52, 54, 56 or 58. Qg3 wins immediately.

Huh? Qg3 would have just been a queen trade. White would probably win eventually, but not immediately...

Originally posted by mnelson
Huh? Qg3 would have just been a queen trade. White would probably win eventually, but not immediately...

Following the Q trade white is a whole B up with passed g & h pawns.

The h pawn cannot be stopped and with no prospect of counterplay in this elementary ending an immediate resignation is justified.

Can you suggest an easier way for white to win?

Originally posted by mnelson
Huh? Qg3 would have just been a queen trade. White would probably win eventually, but not immediately...

Most opponents would immediately resign, that seems immediately enough for me 😵

Edit: if not I think I could confidently hand that game over to my 9 year old god daughter who I am currently teaching, I know she would beat me from that position.

Originally posted by mnelson
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.

No one agreed with you, I just read the hidden thread in the trash. It was removed because of bickering over a chess rule that will not be changed. It is not cheating, and calling users cheaters at RHP is frowned upon.

This thread may soon suffer the same fate as the last one, it is useless.

P-

The post that was quoted here has been removed

one can hope

Originally posted by Phlabibit
No one agreed with you, I just read the hidden thread in the trash. It was removed because of bickering over a chess rule that will not be changed. It is not cheating, and calling users cheaters at RHP is frowned upon.

This thread may soon suffer the same fate as the last one, it is useless.

P-

This thread is not totally useless as I am having a good laugh.

Originally posted by mnelson
Huh? Qg3 would have just been a queen trade. White would probably win eventually, but not immediately...

Dragonfire is about 710 rating points higher than you and from some of his games I have looked at he could be even higher so any advice he gives on chess you should look at it as advice from some chess god who makes moves you'll never comprehend.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
No one agreed with you, I just read the hidden thread in the trash.

Nice fact checking. You can never be too sure about something obvious. Can I give you a call next time I need to verify if someone is being sarcastic?

Originally posted by mnelson
Nice fact checking. You can never be too sure about something obvious. Can I give you a call next time I need to verify if someone is being sarcastic?

Based on the first thread (stupid) I didn't think you were capable of sarcasm. I'll take your word for it, but I have my doubts... you seemed pretty keen on standing by your misbegotten views that 3 position repetition was 'cheating'.

I'll upgrade you from 'brain-dead' to 'shows signs of basic human functions'

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Based on the first thread (stupid) I didn't think you were capable of sarcasm. I'll take your word for it, but I have my doubts... you seemed pretty keen on standing by your misbegotten views that 3 position repetition was 'cheating'.

I'll upgrade you from 'brain-dead' to 'shows signs of basic human functions'

P-

once again Phlabibit comes through with another reccomendable post!

😛