Can the fifty-move law be suspended?

Yes. The guy had to demonstrate the FORCED checkmate on the board, to the TD. (He did it, by the way, and won the game.)

It would have been bad luck for the white player in this situation (mate in 16):

The longest KQ v K mate is 10 moves, so even a good player might have trouble doing it in 11.

I like the insurance rule, as landing on a decked out Boardwalk is the end of you in any game of monopoly, and I can only imagine the price of insurance as you land closer to those blue lines of hotels XD.  As for prebuy, I don't see why anyone would voluntarily play this when buying property lends itself for higher resale value and/or trade incentives, not to mention the inherent risk of running yourself in the red if you're forced to buy something at an inopportune time, when much of your cash could be better spent developing properties.  As for the auction rule, I always thought that was standard?  Auction rule allows for inflated pricing, or the occasional discount, if you find none of your opponents have the buying power that your greater assets afford you.  I like to artificially spike the prices on auction to limit my opponent's immediate development prospects, while at the same time maximizing my buying power if I have an early lead in overall expansion.  As for the number of players, that's a pretty arbitrary number, but suffice to say you need at least more than 2 players to make it a decent game, because monopoly is a microcosm in the art of the deal.  The luck factor in monopoly is the probability of landing on unpurchased properties in the early rounds instead of landing of tax squares or picking up cards that delay your expansion.  To say monopoly is absent luck is just wrong.

About poker, the skill lies in not overvaluing the odds that your cards present you to the point that a loss will be detrimental the the power of your chip stack.  There is no luck in that regard.  At the same time, there is plenty of luck in poker, like anyone who's ever experienced a bad beat will tell you.

I can't see how those two games of luck and skill can be compared to a game of chess, in which luck has nothing to do with anything.  Sure you can argue that one were "lucky" one's opponent didn't see an obvious blunder or hanging piece, but that's more an oversight on the part of the opponent.

Nothing else to say but.....

Are you stuck behing the pawns on the dark or light squares?

this help my reading skill a lot^

You talk mighty big for a juvie who mostly seems to beat up players rated 400 points lower (interestingly, your biggest scalp was someone whose account's since been suspended. Funny that). Anyway, I never get into arguments with tards - all they do is drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. I entered this thread with civil enough intentions and I seem to have stumbled across someone with nothing better to do than sass his betters, and whose idea of wit is basically "I know you are but what am I?". Buh-bye.

This wasn't an online monopoly site?

this has been educational for me lol o.o

There is luck in chess as well. Here's an example. I advanced to the second round of the 21st Chess.com Tournament because a 1781 rated player lost to a 1644. That should happen about once out of 5 games in the ELO rating system. Not sure here (chess.com has a different formula, but should be similar. Interestingly, the same odds as a gut shot straight draw has on the flop in hold-em.

To verybadbishop: The skill is knowing how much to charge for insurance, based on how many squares away from the designated property the opponent is. Or the likelihood of hitting several in once round the board. It's the same as in poker. The object of any play is to increase expected value. An example of prebuy value is if you need one property to make a monopoly and an opponent needs a different property to make a monopoly. You can trade prebuys. As I said, the game is for 4 people. This "alliance" puts the other two at great disadvantage.

I was about to leave this thread as his jokes about

"What you do with middle school kids is your business. My advice: don't make it the police's business." is not funny at all. Real sick joke.

Luck has 2 definitions

1) A random act that can not be figured out.

2) When preparation meets opportunity with a positive outcome and the results are of success.

Yes, I agree. And in games where randomness is involved (luck), there is great skill in knowing the odds and acting accordingly. Speaking of which, it's time for me to go play poker now.

I have a problem.

Say the rule is suspended, it will be replaced with some othe rule in its place. Now it may be better or worse. Do you still want to suspended it?

At times i play poker like i play my chess.

I play my opponent in that case and not the board.

I ask my self is my opponent play style slow moving, fast moving, develop first, attack first then develop, passive(game over), over aggressive, nervous(intimidate easily when a complex situation comes up and blunders), small vision (only sees one thing like he only sees one side of the board - left or right)  and etc. I see several of the last one when playing.

I used to play now my new stategy is throw my entire kitty in on the first hand and let the chips fly.

@royalbishop no, you should not play chess based on your opponent's "style" or favored line, but what the position tells you is best to do, based on your understanding.  Doing otherwise isn't playing objectively or to the best of your ability.  

Why should someone go into lines that the opponent is better prepared, or you yourself are not familiar with?  How many here can say they've played a poor game at some point because of intimidation from stronger rated opponent?  Play the position to the best of your ability, and don't let the person across the table affect your play.  Think about the trash talk in an OTB game, should I let that affect my play as well?  Of course not.

Generals will tell you "conditions on the ground dictate appropriate courses of action."  This should hold true on the chess board.

Maybe i should clear that up.

Say (really happens to me) my opponent moves fast in a 3day a move game and when i make a move he responds in less than 4 seconds in the opening. I have some speed myself. I learned sometimes it is better to really slow down and take 15 - 20 minutes a move. He feel comfortable moving fast and most of the time has fast games. Take him out his comfort zone. Now i take 15-20 minutes and he is just sitting around getting frustrated. Wanting to know what is taking me so long and not thinking about what lines of thought he could be playing during that time. While i am taking about 5 times the amount of effort my opponent most of the time in this case. Sooner or later an error comes. I usually see it around move 25 in this case.

Now say the opposite. Like i said i have some speed and my opponent is moving slow i speed up to see if they have some speed if it is an opening that i feel real comfortable with for say 3 moves or maybe in middle game. Have to careful as they maybe have increased their focus so i only do it with situations i have seen before over and over.

Now in live chess i learned something a cheap trick. in those minute games. Use of your regular openings are useless. I play unorthodox. Make eveymove as complicated as possible. push a pawn now they have to think take the pawn with pawn, ignore or protect their pawn to hold position. In case of 2 pieces defending a piece i try to take that piece they have to figure which to take with and why i did it trap or not trap.

If i play something like a french defense they know the first couple moves by heart. they have nothing to fear. But if i play out the book early in the game they have to make decisions they have to think and their time goes down vs playing by the book which they know.

Ok now in the case of guy that like to set things up then figure out how to attack. I often look for ways to attack something not the king. That would be premature. I might take a positional advantage in center or wing that he has to stop before he tries to castle or i may control of it up to the End Game.

Oh my favorite player. The guy grabs anything free. It looks like a free piece this move and for next move by their is price to pay later. I love this player as they will just take it. Now that is not the part i really love. The part i love is after they fall the trap they are scared to take anything period. Then i can just march to their king as they will play very passive.

I like to see this rule change but at the same time guard against something way worse replacing it.