If we're to abolish stalemate...
Sort:
If you abolish stalemates, then if you get the other king in a position where he cannot move, and it is his turn to move, allow the clock to keep running and then he would lose because he ran out of time to make a move.
The king and his men are under siege like it happen during the middle ages. When they ran out of food and water the king would give up.
It is kind of neat to get someone in stalemate on purpose. I was wondering when someone would respond to this. I didn't think it would be me. Great idea. It eliminates ties.
Denver
DENVERHIGH wrote:
If you abolish stalemates, then if you get the other king in a position where he cannot move, and it is his turn to move, allow the clock to keep running and then he would lose because he ran out of time to make a move.
The king and his men are under siege like it happen during the middle ages. When they ran out of food and water the king would give up.
It is kind of neat to get someone in stalemate on purpose. I was wondering when someone would respond to this. I didn't think it would be me. Great idea. It eliminates ties.
Denver
+1!
DENVERHIGH wrote:
if you get the other king in a position where he cannot move, and it is his turn to move, allow the clock to keep running and then he would lose because he ran out of time to make a move.
In fact whenever a losing position is encountered for any reason at all just stop and run the clock down. Maybe even disconnect. Oh no, hang on...
Loving the bishop-rockets idea
Gizmodeus wrote:
Why are there so many discussions on this forum about stuff that's never going to happen? We can make all the threads we want about stalemates needing to be abolished, but they never will. Also, cheaters and rude people are pretty much never going to go anywhere, either.
NONO , YOU NEED TO MAKE A LOGICAL STATEMENT !!! :)
Why does chess have to be turn-based? Why not just have both sides make moves at the same time, or as many possible moves as they can as fast as they can? Or why can't the pieces move to any square on the board and capture any other piece? This is how my 5 year old nephew likes to play when he gets bored with regular chess.
Nuclear chess... cool.
Actually, I think there is a variation called nuclear chess. When you capture an opponent's piece, you also capture all pieces (his and yours) in the surrounding 8 squares.
Demonstration game . White to move and win in three.
LmaO. Haha ha, I can't stop laughing! He took the King, it's off the board. It's taken too long for me to spell right now. Monster, that's your mandatory Avatar.
??
why didnt you launch your white bishop?
Why not remove other contradictory rules...
My proposals:
1. Chess is war , so there is no way that there is no improvements of technical nature. From now on bishops shall become rockets. After pressing the
" button " in three moves needed for launching sequence, white bishop can strike any square on the board. Black squared bishop , can be put on "ready" in order to shoot down enemy incoming rockets.
Queens shall become carriers , with ability to launch pawns against enemy ...
airborne cavalry (horsies) shall be deployed from rooks.
2. One should abolish that stupid rule that someone has to move first. How is that possible , that one must be forced to reveal his tactics against his will? From now on , how starts is to be determined by a players agreement , including conditional clauses ( i.e. I move first but than get a beer for one who is moving second).
3. Also , the outcome of the game is to be changed . No more checkmates, the one who wins is the first to earn 30 frags. Also the "king of the hill" , and "capture the flag" variants shall be included.
4. NO MORE STALEMATES
Only than chess will become the most popular game ever .