Lol, did he stalemate someone and get mad?
No I haven't stalemated anyone. Constuctive statements and arguments are welcome. But your post is nothing but an ad hominem attack. Which has a false premise and is totally irrelevant to the issue.
He asked a question that wasn't directed toward you. An ad hominem attack is....
when someone attacks your character in general as a way of trying to make the truth you are telling as somehow unreputable, because your character is in question.
Ex... After you testified under oath as to what you witnessed, though the court had proof you lied about something else specific, the attourney questioning you, during cross examination asks the rhetorical question, Do you expect us to believe someone who is a known liar, according to the court record?...
It gets tiresome sometimes when you can't point out a truth, or ask a simple question, without some accusing you of doing some wrong, A.K.A., trying to be right about something, when in a debate.
He asked a question that wasn't directed toward you. An ad hominem attack is....
when someone attacks your character in general as a way of trying to make the truth you are telling as somehow unreputable, because your character is in question.
Ex... After you testified under oath as to what you witnessed, though the court had proof you lied about something else specific, the attourney questioning you, during cross examination asks the rhetorical question, Do you expect us to believe someone who is a known liar, according to the court record?...
An ad hominem attack is to attack the person not the logic. I had posted nothing that was a factual issue. An attorney who asked as "rhetorical" question "Do you expect us to believe someone who is a known liar, would find himself quickly in contempt of court unless (1) he had laid a predicate showing the witness was a known liar, and (2) the witness had put his character in issue. Such an attorney would also be quickly be having to answer the grievance committee for his unethical question.
Attorneys are not allowed to ask rhetorical questions on cross examination.
Besides being unethical, it would be an extremely poor question to ask on cross examination. On cross you want to ask questions that can only be answered yes or no, and that you already know the answer to. Such a open ended question would give a witness an opportunity to expound at length and tell the attorney exactly how the cow ate the cabbage.
Chessisgood had no evidence that I had stalemated someone, and even if I had it would have no bearing on the logic of my arguments.
If someone thinks there is a possibility that a person has an unsound bias, for whatever reason, questioning the possibility or the person's past to see if they do doesn't mean they are "attacking" the person.
An attack that is designed to make the person look bad, in this case would something like, oh, he only has an 800 tactics trainer rating, he is too stupid to avoid stalemate.
If you just lost your first game by an unexpected stalemate and had gotten angry, and decided you didn't like the rule, based soley on that experience, as opposed to making an educated decision, based on the pros and cons of the rule, one could rightly conclude that you had a bias, in anger, from a game you lost. That isn't an ad hominem attack. That is all the person did who asked me the question.
If you interpreted it differently, due to a history in another forum. That is different and you can't expect me to see it that way. I can only go by what I read verbatim.
Oh and attourneys can ask rhetorical questions. It isn't that they expect you to necessarily answer, it is more that they are hoping for a particular response, in terms of explaining what is otherwise a situation that doesn't make sense, while trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. They ask their own clients rhetorical questions all of the time as a way for them to explain freely, uninterrupted by a bunch of question, as well as, to get the jury or judge to see the error, in a certain way of thinking.
Do you mean hypothical instead of rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is one that your not asking for answer but trying to make a point. Asking a rhetorical to your own client would be objectional on several grounds. (One) that it is leading, (two) that direct and cross examination are not the proper time to make arguments, and (three) the attorney is trying to testify. Clearly closing argument is the proper time for an attorney to get the judge or jury to see the way of certain way of thinking. Attorneys would love it if their clients could tell their stories uninterupted, but if the client is doing a good job the other side will quickly object and demand that the questioning be proper. Often the client doesn't do a good job and the opposing attorney will be happy to let him hang himself.
Do you mean hypothical instead of rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is one that your not asking for answer but trying to make a point. Asking a rhetorical to your own client would be objectional on several grounds. (One) that it is leading, (two) that direct and cross examination are not the proper time to make arguments, and (three) the attorney is trying to testify. Clearly closing argument is the proper time for an attorney to get the judge or jury to see the way of certain way of thinking. Attorneys would love it if their clients could tell their stories uninterupted, but if the client is doing a good job the other side will quickly object and demand that the questioning be proper. Often the client doesn't do a good job and the opposing attorney will be happy to let him hang himself.
A rhetorical question can have hypothetical implications...
They are not going to fatigue their minds over the slight chance of a win in the standard game, because that would increase the chance of a blunder or oversight in the blitz game.
Imagine if a WCC competition was held in which there was a blitz portion, standard portion and a 960 portion. If there is a tie, do something perhaps less taxing in totality, but that is still rather challenging. Use puzzles
I just find this rather weird. are you trying to determine the "spatiotemporo reasoning champion" of the world or the world chess champion?
" play chess against one's opponent, perhaps more than chess itself ", blitz is ideal.
the kinds of psychological factors to which you are alluding here are very present in standard chess, they are merely exacerbated and brought to the forefront when professionals play blitz (when enthusiasts play blitz, it's more or less all there is to the games for the most part). and that's essentially what blitz/bullet does. it emphasizes certain factors/abilties above others to the point where the games are rather superficial, albeit a degree or so less when played by extremely strong professionals.
but perhaps changing things up a bit and testing their pure chess ability, as opposed to their memory, of a bunch of drawish lines would be for the better.
this is really a mischaracterization/misconception of top level standard tournament chess. that's not what is actually going on, it's really not all memorized dry boring theory as most people think and love to say all the time. although it does appear this way sometimes. I think this is more because there are more risk adverse technicians like kramnik than attackers like topalov at the top. and some of these super-tournaments (like dortmund) seem to only ever invite the strongest technicians to play against one another. on the whole it's just more difficult for people to fully appreciate technical-kramnik play.
there's tons of room for creative play in standard chess. it is far far far from being solved or something by human players. creative chess happens all the time in standard tournaments though no one seems to ever notice for more than 5 minutes. grandmaster draws happen because there's usually little to no incentive (financial or otherwise) for them to be sitting there for hours straining the hell out of their mind. and it probably happens often that even though one side has a slight advantage, with maybe a 50 percent chance or so of converting to a win on a good day, they still might agree a draw because again there's just no incentive to sit there try and convert.
apparently another reason why there's so much emphasis on openings and theory above 2700 today has something to do with the advent of super strong computer engines than anything else (according to a GM, not me). the opening seemingly wasn't always as important as it is today at the highest levels.
I think that in general chess enthusiasts talk about opening lines and theory as if they're super gms. there's something strange going on here. it's like they hear professionals talk about theory so much in a certain way that they begin to adopt the same language, more generally inappropriately.
You must be on a phone. When I use my Android to chat in forums, it won't quote properly. It also doesn't leave good spacing. Whenever someone breaks my thread apart, they usually take things out of context. I normally tell them if they can't read it all the way through and leave some summarizing remarks, for what they think in response, they must be trying to tear down parts of it, instead of looking at it as a whole. If you can't remember each part well enough to give a full summary, perhaps you should reread it a few times, maybe it's benefits will actually rub off.
I went down the page seeking a rational foothold for court room drama, lawyers,personal attacks and a question about stale-mates. NOW, did u fall into stale mate while in a winning position or is a chess book on the way?
I came here because I thought the title of the post was, "Dynamic SNORING!" LOL! 
Guess the eyes are going.
I went down the page seeking a rational foothold for court room drama, lawyers,personal attacks and a question about stale-mates. NOW, did u fall into stale mate while in a winning position or is a chess book on the way?
You must not have looked very closely, because I answered that question. No, I didn't fall into a stalemate while in a winning position. I doubt that Lasker ever did either, the real issue is the effect of stalemate on the endgame. I think the most interesting part of Lasker's idea was the marginal win for exposing the king. We did get off the subject talking about legal ethics, but it kind of irked me when someone tried to draw an analogy between an unethical lawyer's antics to justify the behavior of a troll.
Interesting. It would become like judo. I just scored an ipon :-)
Is stalemate a wazari?
Blake, i'm with you totally!!
0.8 for anyone who blunders away a win and stalemates their opponent.
perfect logic for morons like you, me and the monster_munch.
Should i contact FIDE or do you want to ?
Leave FIDE out of this. There are enough morons in this discussion already.
Who do I go to for my rating adjustment? I exposed my opponents king in my last draw.
Scottrf wrote:
Who do I go to for my rating adjustment? I exposed my opponents king in my last draw.
Wow, TMI.
Leave FIDE out of this. There are enough morons in this discussion already.
nowhere near enough, but the monster doesn't have the guts to wander outside his own territory.
Lasker's idea came back at the time when many top players despaired that chess was suffering a "draw death" as lesser masters could hold a draw against the best by just refusing to take any risks or create any weaknesses.
As this concern proved baseless over time, it was a solution without a problem.
Too many people who can't even play the game we have want to tinker with the rules. It won't make them any better, they will just suck at a different game, too.
+1
They would only succeed in changing a game the rest of us love and then they would switch games in disgust, after realizing how much their king gets captured, or they lose to the silly point scheme they cooked up , thinking it would give the less skilled equal chances to win...