You evidently never learned about stalemate. In your first position, you have stalemated your opponent. They have no legal moves but are not in check.
For the last several hundred years, that has been declared a draw.
In the second one, you got checkmated. You have no legal moves but you are in check.
There is a difference.
I disagree with you, because in several moments in the game I was in a deadlock position, where my opponent made a mistake in the positioning of his pieces several times, allowing me only to move the king, where another absurd error on the part of the platform occurred, because with the limited movement of the king, I had to repeat the movement of the king at least 10 times and the platform did not end the game claiming the excessive repetition. It doesn't make any sense to me and logic has gone a long way in this regard.
(SOME OF THE PREVIOUS PLAYS)
Remembering that a few moves before, I repeated the king's move at least 10 times and even then the platform did not end the game.
I disagree with you, because in several moments in the game I was in a deadlock position, where my opponent made a mistake in the positioning of his pieces several times, allowing me only to move the king, where another absurd error on the part of the platform occurred, because with the limited movement of the king, I had to repeat the movement of the king at least 10 times and the platform did not end the game claiming the excessive repetition. It doesn't make any sense to me and logic has gone a long way in this regard.
(SOME OF THE PREVIOUS PLAYS)
The rule is not move repetition but triple repetition of position. All pieces have to be on exactly the same squares and the same side has to be on the move each time for the repetition to count.
I disagree with you, because in several moments in the game I was in a deadlock position, where my opponent made a mistake in the positioning of his pieces several times, allowing me only to move the king, where another absurd error on the part of the platform occurred, because with the limited movement of the king, I had to repeat the movement of the king at least 10 times and the platform did not end the game claiming the excessive repetition. It doesn't make any sense to me and logic has gone a long way in this regard.
(SOME OF THE PREVIOUS PLAYS)
The rule is not move repetition but triple repetition of position. All pieces have to be on exactly the same squares and the same side has to be on the move each time for the repetition to count.
I don't know if you understood, but the images I posted do not refer to the moment when the repetitions took place, the repetitions occurred a few moves before the ones in which I placed the images, these images I placed so that you could verify that on that occasion there was an impasse in the my movements, just like my first challenge.
I disagree with you, because in several moments in the game I was in a deadlock position, where my opponent made a mistake in the positioning of his pieces several times, allowing me only to move the king, where another absurd error on the part of the platform occurred, because with the limited movement of the king, I had to repeat the movement of the king at least 10 times and the platform did not end the game claiming the excessive repetition. It doesn't make any sense to me and logic has gone a long way in this regard.
(SOME OF THE PREVIOUS PLAYS)
The rule is not move repetition but triple repetition of position. All pieces have to be on exactly the same squares and the same side has to be on the move each time for the repetition to count.
I don't know if you understood, but the images I posted do not refer to the moment when the repetitions took place, the repetitions occurred a few moves before the ones in which I placed the images, these images I placed so that you could verify that on that occasion there was an impasse in the my movements, just like my first challenge.
keep in mind he’s 1000+ rating points above u
@MartinStahl is soooooo right
whoops i meant @Martin_Stahl
I don't know if you understood, but the images I posted do not refer to the moment when the repetitions took place, the repetitions occurred a few moves before the ones in which I placed the images, these images I placed so that you could verify that on that occasion there was an impasse in the my movements, just like my first challenge.
My initial post was to clarify that the moves don't really matter and one player moving back and forth is not enough to repeat positions.
I have looked at the actual game and move 63 was the first time a repetition could have occurred, based on your initial image.
Moves 63 and 67 were two repetitions and you were checkmated the next move. There were no other repetitions of position.
Bruh. Can you read chess terms and play chess?
The first game is clearly a stalemate ending. The king can not put himself in check and thus has no legal move. It is a stalemate/draw. Second game is a checkmate, very clear you lost.
Post #1 reminds me of the type of stuff you might find scribbled on the walls in the house of a serial killer.
r/confidentlyincorect and you screaming it on top of it.
Not Chess.com's fault, you really just need to learn the chess rules properly.
THE CHESS.COM PLATFORM IS A REAL JOKE AND MAKING MORE AND MORE IDIOTS USERS, IN ADDITION TO THE CURRENT PROBLEM THAT THE GREAT MOST OF USERS HERE HAVE BEEN FACING, WHICH IS COMMUNICATION FAILURES, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A MATCH AND SIMPLY THE CONNECTION IS LOST OR APPEARS OUT OF NOTHING YOU MISSED THE MATCH BECAUSE THE TIME IS OVER, AND YOU HAD ENOUGH TIME TO PLAY, THIS IS REVOLTING AND GETS RIDICULOUS. AND ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT ALSO REVOLTS IS THE LOGIC USED BY THEM IN RELATION TO THE GAMES, WHERE A COMPLETELY DESCABBLE AND INTOLERABLE LOGIC IS IMPLEMENTED. Just below there are two matches I played today, where the first match resulted in a draw, as the platform claimed that due to lack of material the match was ended and delivering a draw for both players.
(MATCH THAT CAUSED A DRAW)
In this second game just below, I lost. And as you can see, the amount of material I had was visibly lower than the previous game and even so the platform did not end the game due to lack of material, it simply continued the game until finally my opponent finished me with a checkmate. . In short, he insists on saying that these grotesque failures that occur in an irresponsible way, have been making this platform totally lose its credibility, unfortunately.
(DEPARTURE THAT CAUSED MY DEFEAT)
You're like that person who has just started a course at university and 'corrects' the professor even though it's a subject in which you have no expertise
THE CHESS.COM PLATFORM IS A REAL JOKE AND MAKING MORE AND MORE IDIOTS USERS, IN ADDITION TO THE CURRENT PROBLEM THAT THE GREAT MOST OF USERS HERE HAVE BEEN FACING, WHICH IS COMMUNICATION FAILURES, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A MATCH AND SIMPLY THE CONNECTION IS LOST OR APPEARS OUT OF NOTHING YOU MISSED THE MATCH BECAUSE THE TIME IS OVER, AND YOU HAD ENOUGH TIME TO PLAY, THIS IS REVOLTING AND GETS RIDICULOUS. AND ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT ALSO REVOLTS IS THE LOGIC USED BY THEM IN RELATION TO THE GAMES, WHERE A COMPLETELY DESCABBLE AND INTOLERABLE LOGIC IS IMPLEMENTED. Just below there are two matches I played today, where the first match resulted in a draw, as the platform claimed that due to lack of material the match was ended and delivering a draw for both players.
(MATCH THAT CAUSED A DRAW)
In this second game just below, I lost. And as you can see, the amount of material I had was visibly lower than the previous game and even so the platform did not end the game due to lack of material, it simply continued the game until finally my opponent finished me with a checkmate. . In short, he insists on saying that these grotesque failures that occur in an irresponsible way, have been making this platform totally lose its credibility, unfortunately.
(DEPARTURE THAT CAUSED MY DEFEAT)