Stalemate is the most sensible rule ever. This pawn promotion b.s. is the stupidest I have ever heard of. If u have 10 seconds left, ur seriously gonna watch what hand u touch everything with, while ur struggling to find a queen, reach for it, throw the pawn away and slam it down and hit the clock. It's unfair to the player who has to waste 5 seconds actually thinking about every bodily movement he makes. Complete nonsense. Unfair time advantage blah blah... A few milliseconds? Come on be reasonable. If anything it's a DISADVANTAGE as players have to worry about what hands they are doing everything with when they are focusing on the game. Chess, a great logical game that can please millions of people for fun and for prizes, but humans of course have to screw it up. Worrying about how u touch the pieces, hit the clock, how many moves went by..etc, just play the dam game!
Another new stupid rule in chess
I'd say en passant is the worst.
En passant best rule ever!
Distraction? Give me a break. And what about losing 5 seconds having to do extra trips with only 1 hand. As long as they hit the clock after they make the move. And what difference does it make anyway, as soon as u push your pawn and touches the queen, you already know what the move is, thus it is already made. Physically moving the pieces shouldn't be such a major factor in move completion. As soon as you push the pawn and grab the queen, the move is made, and the opponent can start calculating immediately, regardless if if the queen isn't perfectly centered. knocked over, placed on the square yet..etc. If I have 7 seconds left on the clock, how can I waste time making sure I reach over and grab the piece with one hand? What if I can't reach. What if I have to run 2 boards away to grab a queen cause the original's still on the board. This is the most ridiculous regulation ever.
Here's how the rules get more and more obsurd:
Touchmove: OK, but if u change ur mind, u lose time anyway.
Hit the clock with the same hand u touch the piece: Getting a little crazy
Push your pawn, grab promotion piece, place, and hit clock all with same hand: NUTS
The people who make these ridiculous rules are obssessing over nothing lol.
The rule requiring the player to hit the clock with the same hand he moved the piece is rational and proper. It ensures that he doesn't hit the clock before he completes the move. If he was allowed to hit the clock with the other hand, he would be able to hit the clock before or at the same time he moved the piece. The clock must be hit after the move is completed. As doggone2 noted above, allowing a player to move the piece with his right hand while he hits the clock with the other may distract his opponent. It's difficult to understand why players complain about this rule. When you learn how to use a chess clock, you learn that you must hit it with the same hand that moved the piece. Why on earth would you get into the habit of using your other hand? It doesn't take long for doing it correctly to become second nature.
The rule requiring the player to hit the clock with the same hand he moved the piece is rational and proper. It ensures that he doesn't hit the clock before he completes the move. If he was allowed to hit the clock with the other hand, he would be able to hit the clock before or at the same time he moved the piece. The clock must be hit after the move is completed. As doggone2 noted above, allowing a player to move the piece with his right hand while he hits the clock with the other may distract his opponent. It's difficult to understand why players complain about this rule. When you learn how to use a chess clock, you learn that you must hit it with the same hand that moved the piece. Why on earth would you get into the habit of using your other hand? It doesn't take long for doing it correctly to become second nature.
Because if I have 5 seconds left, I can't afford the time loss of making sure I do everything with the same hand. What if I can't reach the queen with with my other hand? Who's even paying attention to this stuff? What's the penalty if u make a mistake? It's not second nature. It's not like writing with your dominant hand. It's just grabbing a piece! I can still hit the clock with the same hand, but who cares what I grab the piece with? I wouldn't hit the clock before making the move, and even if I happen to hit the clock at the same time or a millisecond before the piece, who cares? How on earth is it gonna distract the opponent? Like the opponent even cares. He concentrating on the game. He could care less keeping track of I'm sorry, but this rule is completely OCD. What if I drop the queen and that causes me to lose on time? You have to be reasonable here, but this is stupid because, 1st, no one is gonna care, 2nd, no one is gonna waste their time arguing over b.s. like that. 3rd, no one is gonna think of it when they have a few seconds left.
the rule is the definition of fair; it is equal to both sides.
the argument essentially "maybe I hit the clock a millisecond early, but really who cares - the other guy has other things to worry about and wont even notice" -- you're basically unintentionally proving the other side's point.
also, debate 101: resorting to calling things names out of frustration ("the rule is completely OCD") is dismissive and a sign of a really poor argument.
but the bottom line is regarding the rule, it is the definition of 'fair': it affects both sides equally. If you don't like it, you're welcome to invent your own variation of chess rules. I strongly suspect people playing "your way" will have more quibbling than those who just suck it up and do it this way.
my 2 cents. I know I wont change your mind about this, you've already made your mind up that it's stupid. It isn't though.
Yeah it is STUPID. Just think of it quickly, and you'll see how stupid it is. Worrying about what hands u touch the pieces with. There is basically no words to describe how stupid it is. The rule is OCD because worrying about the millisecond time difference IS OCD. It's not out of frusturation (this rule won't affect my tournament play) it's the truth. That's the whole point. Your gonna lecture me on common sense? Your one of these logic lawyer technical people who like to point out every tiny flaw in someone's common sense point, right? How does saying a millisecond doesn't matter supporting his point? It's defending my point. You can't see how crazy it's getting?
1st, touchmove, fair enough
2nd, touch-release, ok, getting a little annoying, but fine
3rd, same hand to touch piece and clock, getting ridiculous now
4th, touch piece, bring queen, place piece, hit clock all with same hand- Nuts
Anyone with common sense can see the transgression here.
The whole point is that it is an OCD rule, there's no other way to put it. That's the bottom line. It is unfair to either player to have to worry about that when they are running low on time. One can see if they hit the clock blatently before moving. This isn't necessary to ensure fair time control and most would agree with this. It's a huge OCD exaggeration. Just play the dam game!
The people who make these ridiculous rules are obssessing over nothing lol.
Endgame reading your multiple posts on this matter, make this "obsessing over nothing" statement of yours kind of ironic. you seem to be the one "off the deep end" here - you're freaking out over something that's not even remotely important in the big picture.
tell me 1 reason why the rule is unfair. does it give an advantage to white, or to black? I await your response.
please, r e l a x ... go get some fresh air. there are bigger things to get upset about in life.
1. I'm not the one making a big issue out of it. Whoever made this rule is the one making a big deal over nothing. The whole point is that the rule is unnecessary and stupid.
2. It is unfair to ANY player. Or both players for that matter. No player should have to worry about what hands they did everything with while trying to concentrate on the game. Any rule applies to both players..DUH, that doesn't make the rule "fair", just equal.
3. Stop counting the lines in my post and just try to actually understand what I'm saying.
"It is unfair to ANY player. Or both players for that matter." thanks for a good laugh. you're missing the point, and I'm done trying to argue with you.
So, you're right. most. unjust. rule. ever. really how did chess games ever get played without all of these crazy stupid rules that we disagree with? what is the world coming to. it's horrible. etc etc.
unfollowing this thread as the discussion is at the level of either a 3rd grade shouting match, or perhaps an american presidential election. either way it's nauseating.
good luck with your outrage. I hope it goes well for you.
1. You haven't even started arguing lol. Why don't u explain why u think this "rule" should be enforced. What point am I missing?
2. Uhh, only recently did people try to make up these stupid rules. People are the ones who make federal cases out of nothing. That's exactly why people never get anything done. They obsess over the stupid things
3. I think you should read what u said and re-think your opinion of my "out-rage" lol
Anyone with common sense can see the transgression here.
I pointed out above that there is a rational reason for requiring hitting the clock with the same hand that moves the piece. It's to ensure that the player hits the clock after he completes the move. It's a common sense rule. You said, "even if I happen to hit the clock at the same time or a millisecond before the piece, who cares?" Who cares if you touch a piece and then move another piece? Some care and some don't but that's beside the point. You also argue that moving the piece with one hand and hitting the clock with the other couldn't possibly distract your opponent and that your opponent couldn't care less. But doggone2 said above that it is a distraction and he finds it very annoying. You dismissed his opinion. That's because you get to decide what is common sense, what is a distraction and what your opponent cares about.
1. It's an anti-common sense rule. It doesn't affect the time whatsoever
2. I can't believe for a second that it would DISTRACT (him) the opponent.He should be looking at the board, not his opponent's hands. Maybe he's just desparate to get an extra 2 minutes on his clock and he's looking for any technical violation to satisfy that. That is just complete b.s. -DISTRACTION why should one hand distract him and the other not? Makes no sense, end of story.
3. I can't believe people actually support such a dumb OCD rule, Well, with humans, I'm not surprised.
4. No one decides what common sense is. Common sense is simply basic logic and reasoning,
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...
As much as I disagree with you about stalemate being a win, You are 200% right about the hand rule. That is the stupidest., retarted, OCD rule I have ever heard of in chess EVER. What next, we have to hit the clock with the same finger as we touched the piece? We must respect this rule though, otherwise our opponent will be so blindsighted that we used a different hand to get the queen that he'll be mortified and completely lose concentration and the game.
Anyone with common sense can see the transgression here.
I pointed out above that there is a rational reason for requiring hitting the clock with the same hand that moves the piece. It's to ensure that the player hits the clock after he completes the move. It's a common sense rule. You said, "even if I happen to hit the clock at the same time or a millisecond before the piece, who cares?" Who cares if you touch a piece and then move another piece? Some care and some don't but that's beside the point. You also argue that moving the piece with one hand and hitting the clock with the other couldn't possibly distract your opponent and that your opponent couldn't care less. But doggone2 said above that it is a distraction and he finds it very annoying. You dismissed his opinion. That's because you get to decide what is common sense, what is a distraction and what your opponent cares about.
U have a VERY good point. Who cares if we touched a piece and moved another piece. Who does care? No one. Maybe we should though cause if we touch a piece and don't move it, it might now be off centered by .3 mm, which will completely confuse both players the whole game.
I understand his logic, that if one player can't move, he losses in a sense because he.can't continue, so he losses. But u have have to ask what's the difference between stalemate and checkmate? Checkmate IS a type of Stalemate! But stalemate is not checkmate That's the logic to apply here. The goal of chess isn't to trap. The problem here is that the king is the piece being considered. Think of it this way: Stalemate can be viewed as successfully stopping your opponent from moving, but not necessarily that u would be able to destroy him the next move, if u could make a next move. Even if u say, the opponent can't make a legal move, so he loses, but this is not being able to make a legal move IN CONTEXT OF THE GAME, not external factors such as not showing up..etc. Stalemate is based on THE POSITION. Its logical in terms of the objective of the game, regardless of whether it makes sense itself. Look at En Passant. Taking a piece on a different square then the piece is on. Completely counter intuitive, but having the rule makes sense for the purpose of the game. Same thing with stalemate
Well explained. I like the idea in a stalemate the defender is stopping your opponent from moving, a kind of a soft version of the checkmate, winning a half point.
En passant was introduced in the Middle Age, where the game got very dynamic, among others with a powerful queen and pawns moving 2 squares in the first move. The en passant was an adjustments of the game to adapt to the new power the figures had.