Disregarding all the previous comments, i think he meant it as in LITERALLY. Like, obviously in the first position white CAN win, but in terms of chess its "not legal". He is using the definition of stalemate not of the chess terms but of the real life terms (even if it did come from chess...). But obviously this is a bit of a joke... because its a stupid point to bring up and make it serious... unless he is being seriously serious... and then you know. But then again your all being serious about it so if im serious then we're all serious and then we can all be serious about going against the author of this thread, whatever his name is... I'm serious =D
Chess and some of its semantically incorrect terms (such as stalemate)
Sort:
lol
Murrrrr wrote:
Every site has their own pet troll. I'm so happy I found who it is in here. Now I can dress it to a funny Darth Vader costume...
The user you are looking for is kurogkug.
But I already became attached to this one. I guess I could have two pets tho
Move on folks, nothing to see here
Oh but there is something to see here.
dnleary wrote:
tonydal wrote:
lol...Syd, is that you...?
lol
Yeah - I chuckled at this comment too.
Does Eo even bother to comment in the topics he makes? lol
I might as well do the same thing (not move) whenever I am in a losing position, and it's a draw. Furthermore, if all the other pieces can be sacrificed, from insignificant pawns to mighty queens, why can't the same apply to the king?
The only true stalemates are those in which neither side can win, such as the one shown in the second example. Positions such as the one shown in the first example result in checkmates.
The reason they don't have that rule is because nobody would ever win, if all his opponent needed to do was sacrifice himself in order to deny the win.
The first example is just. The burden of proof, with his two rooks, is on white. It's on him to think ahead and not screw himself out of a win. There's recoil in big power.
But I agree with you about your 2nd example needing revision.
polydiatonic wrote:
A-232 wrote:
In his previous thread, he was defeated because his definition of "stalemate" in chess was flawed. In this thread, he's stating that the actual definition of "stalemate" in chess is semantically incorrect. Since he's obviously not going to win this discussion either, he's bound to post a thread about epistemological questions such as "What is a definition and how can we achieve one?" next. When that attempt fails, he will probably start contesting the existence of the universe.
This brings to mind a quote I came across many years ago:
"Is knowledge knowable? If not, now can we know this?".
The author of this epistemological bit of wit? None other than the great, if somewhat f'd up: Woody Allen. The book? "Getting Even". I read it when I was about 15 in the 70's...
This reminds me of the statement: "There are no absolute truths."
Of course, a more reasonable way to formulate it would be something like, "As far as we know, there are no absolute truths," or "We have never found an absolute truth," or "I doubt there are any absolute truths."
Stalemate=when your spouse turns 50.
I've never been married, but I'm assuming its waaayyyy before that. Maybe after the first couple months together...