5,000 Signs You Don't Know Enough About Chess

Your opponent castles and you call it an illegal move.

Your opponent takes your pawn en passant and you call it an illegal move.

You point out Carlsens move sequence as being weak and misguided to the friend which is watching the game with you and neither of you are rated above 2000.

You think chess engines have spark plugs and need oil changes.

You have not won against a Vulcan.

3010(sorry). You think that a GM's seconds is the time he takes to move.

3011. You don't know who Lenny Bongcloud is.

3012. You start posts stating that Anand is going to school Carlsen next time...and you have done this multiple times....and you believe it each time...

You didn't double.........triple.........or even quadruple post, but you septemple posted!! And you didn't even number them. No wonder the posts in this thread have been miscounted so many times. It might as well go to Five Hundred Billion.

3013: You create spam threads not related to chess.

3014: You think that we're playing a weird version of 2048 on this thread.

3015. You think that you can only move the Knight at Night.

3016. You get upset because your opponent is "wasting your time" when he allows his clock to run down in a live game, allowing you to win on time.

3017. You argue with Kaynight...Batgirl...I_Am_Second...Kleeof...Irontiger...who else can I think of that makes sensible posts here...when they eventually discover the thread and call you out on it.

3018. What's chess?

@December_TwentyNine: 3017 is not a sign that has anything to do with having enough knowledge of chess imo. There is, however, a correlation between the capacity of playing chess and the level of rudeness in threads. But it is not vice versa: not being rude means being able to play good chess. Nor does it imply that one has enough knowledge of chess.

I am in general not rude in my comments, but that does not imply that I have enough knowledge of chess. I will prove the latter with a position from a game I played recently.

Look at this position:

3019: Being white are you going to lose a rook in this position.

(Yes, I did).

Later in the game, there was this position:

So white would play Rg4 and next Qe4 forcing the trade of queens, leaving a won endgame, doesn't it? No, I played Qd3???, giving black the opportunity to play Qxe5+ and having a perpetual check escape, creating rule

3020: you let a pawn or piece undefended that can be captured by your opponent with check.

However, I still managed to win the game, because my opponent was so friendly to overlook a mate in one, creating rule

3021: you are overlooking a mate in one.

I stand corrected! Yes, that comment I made had nothing to do with the ability to know what you're doing in a chess game. And I agree with you. I look at your game above and, thinking about it, Qd3 looked rather painful. And trust me I know that feeling. I've made many mistakes and lost many "won" games. In that diagram, I was looking at White playing Rook to Queen 3, followed up with Queen to Bishop 3, which puts Black in check forcing the Queens of the board, making the end game a little easier.

3022: You're a patzer like me who makes the above statement, who thinks she knows what she's talking about

3023: You post a link about 'martian chess' in a thread about people who posted about the theory of chess.

3024: You think that this game has some resemblance with chess:

http://www.looneylabs.com/rules/martian-chess

But I had to admit, that that post gave me a smile, see thread:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-playertheoretician-whose-also-written-on-other-subjects?lc=1#last_comment

3025: You accept a draw on the 83rd move of this game:

3026: You can not decide if the next position is legal or not?

3027: you can not decide in that position who is to move.

3028: you can not decide what is the result of this game.

3028: The result is stalemate or checkmate if white moves. So if you can't decide the result of the game you don't not know enough about chess. To make that statement you previously made and say if you can't decide the result you don't know enough about chess proves you don't know enough about chess because you said if you can't decide the result then you don't know enough about chess and if you can decide the result then you don't not know enough about chess, which is what your statement implies, which is the opposite of how it should be proving you don't know enough about chess as I have already just proved twice.

It is a stalemate. The last move must be a capture of a black piece/pawn by either the white king or a white knight. The black king can't move for some moves already, hence had to be there a black piece/pawn on the board. The last move in this game was therefor a white move. Now is it blacks turn and he can't make a legal move. Hence it is stalemate. The position is legal by the way. The last moves could have been for instance

67... Nh8-g6 68.Nb6-c8 Ng6-e7 69.Nc8xe7 or

99... d4-d3+ 100.Ke2xd3

3029 (in order to keep this thread going to reach 5000)

Upon seeing two people playing chess you ask the question: "What is the difference between checkers and chess?"

(this btw was an actual comment i heard from a 20-something young lady who observed a game a friend and i was playing)