FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
We have all agreed in the other thread that stalemate is the most senseless rule ever since it allows a player to get a draw in a completely lost position.
In Football you will never see a team losing 5-0 in minute 90 and suddenly for some idiotic rule the game is declared 5-5.
But guess what folks, FIDE decided that stalemate, as dumb as it is, is now very old so they decided to invent a new rule who can compete for the award of stupidest rule ever.
Recently FIDE decided that when you are going to promote a pawn you can exclusively use one hand to move the pawn, bring the queen (or the piece you want to promote) and push the clock.
Any normal human being would understand that if you move your pawn with your right hand and then put the queen with your left hand absolutely nothing changes and no way in hell it is a big deal.
But you know, if people consider chess community as weirdos there is unfortunately a good reason for that. Who would disagree with them when the President of the Federation decides a rule where if you use your second hand to put a stupid piece in a board game then it is a very big deal and you will get punished for that. Really you have to be brainless to even think about something like that.
Even the FIDE president finally realized that chess is not an art, not a science, obviously not a sport. Just a plain and simple board game so he decided to implement a new idiocy in order to make think that it is a game with so much etiquette, LMAO!
What etiquette? Most of people who play in clubs and parks are clasless weirdos and bums anyway!!
Pff, and then I get surprised why so many threads on this forum are utter garbage. If the FIDE themselves create such stupid things, what should I expect from casual fans?
"Oh, but if you use both hands you will have an unfair time advantage" BS argument coming in 3...2...1...
10 paragraphs, over 300 words. Concise.
...its always been a rule that you have to move and use the clock with one hand, they were just clarifying the rule in a promotion situation
Just another ridiculous rule for a pompous president to impose! This is a chess forum, release yourself! Please use more eloquent language next time to greater affect your demographic :). I sincerely disagree with the "weirdo" stereotype imposed on I and the rest of the powerful chess community. Also, have you considered what individuals with only one hand think of this rule?
The whole point of this rule is that a player is not allowed to have both his hands over the board because that might distract opponent's attention.
The other point of the rule is that if you promote with one hand and push the button with the other and do the whole procedure fast enough then it's possible that the clock is pressed before the move.If the difference is just a few miliseconds the arbiters will need a high resolution camera that can replay the scene in slow motion to decide if that indeed happened.
So everything done over the board(move and clock clicking) must be done with one hand so that opponent is not distracted and there is a clear distinction between the move and the clock clicking.
Obviously for those that have never played OTB it makes no sense.For all the rest it makes perfect sense.In OTB a lot of weird things happen , especially in time trouble.
"We have all agreed in the other thread that stalemate is the most senseless rule..."
When you start out your post with a complete falsehood, it's unlikely that anyone will take the rest of what you say seriously. Stalemate is an excellent rule that allows for amazing saves and near-magical tricks. Only the clumsy hate it
Stalemate is a sensible rule.
Stalemate is a sensible rule. Also, the rule about using only one hand to promote and press clock also makes sense.
I totally agree both rules are very stupid. Take for example if my opponent and I are down to our Kings only that shouldn't be a stalemate we should have to play that out. and about the clock rule I'm getting old and have slowed down I think I should be able to pick somebody younger than me to hit my clock button for me that would only be fair.
I like both rules. If you are too stupid to avoid a stalemate then you should at least lose a half a point. I think, if anything, you should lose three quarters of a point.
Man did not walk on the moon.
each football game is like a match in chess. when the score in a football game is 2-1, it means that one team scored 2 goals and the other team scored 1 goal. similarly, in chess it only means that one player in a match has won 2 games and the other player in the match has won 1 game.
i would describe stalemate, in football terms, as one team going very close to scoring a goal and the opposing goalkeeper being caught completely out of position to block the ball, but at the last second the shot is barely a few centimetres wide of the post, and therefore the score is still tied at the end of the game. in football, as in chess, it is not enough to have the greater number of shots on target, the superior amount of possession, and the more number of passes/assists/tackles, or whatever other statistic. you have to be able to score that goal, have the opponent extend his or her hand in resignation, or checkmate them.
In football one team might be 3 players up because of red cards but if they fail to score noone will award them the win and they wouldn't even dare to ask something like that.
Only chessplayers want their incompetence to be rewarded.
My team Sheffield United played a match vs West Brom 10+ years ago in which we had 3 players sent off (including 2 substitutes who had been on the pitch for a minute) and a further 2 injured and unable to continue, leaving us with 6 players with 10 minutes left. The match was abandoned with West Brom leading 3-0 as the rules state a team must have a minimum of 7 players to continue, the only time this has happened in the history of English football. Amidst accusations that our manager Neil Warnock had instructed the players to be sent off and feign injury in order to have the match replayed the FA ruled that the 3-0 result should stand. The 2 substitutes who were dismissed were placed on the transfer list the next day and never played for the club again. Still stalemate is a good rule and the comparison with football is not really applicable IMO.
The same rule applies in chess but in team championships.A team must have a specific number of members or they can't compete.So it's a different rule and has different application.
I do agree that chess can't be compared with amy sport.But those who don't like stalemate do the comparisons , not the others.If one wants to compare checkmate with something then he must compare it with goal.
The example you gave happened once in 100 years.It's not the rule , it's the exception.
The rule says that the team that can't score doesn't win.Yes, some times it might win in the papers.But that happens in chess too.Recently a Canadian GM lost a game because he was wearing shorts.His opponent never won on the board.
Scoring is the ultimate goal in football.It doesn't matter what you do , if you don't score you don't win.Noone disagrees with that.The ultimate goal in chess is checkmate not material as they very conveniently present it.Material superiority was never the goal. Checkmate was always the goal.That is why many times material is sacrificed for an attack and the side with less material wins.
So since checkmate is the ultimate goal,it doesn't matter what you do , if you don't checkmate you don't win.It is very simple and also very reasonable.