3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw was done in the Bilbao Chess Masters Final. I thought it made it more interesting.
But that didn't prevent Anand for drawing everything anyway (9 draws and 1 loss).
3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw was done in the Bilbao Chess Masters Final. I thought it made it more interesting.
But that didn't prevent Anand for drawing everything anyway (9 draws and 1 loss).
The move before notate rule was due to the monroi where I could in theory analyse my games on my electronic board.
Why 3 times, why not call it a draw after the first repetition?
Because there are too many GD draws as it is - DOH! One of the ideas (if not necessarily an original intention) of the 3x rule is that you can gain time on the clock by repeating the same position TWICE with the same player to move. Bet you never thought of that one huh?
Change the castling rules back to free castling! If you don't know what free castling is, please read the forum topic titled, Bring Back Free Castling!! This rule actually used to be the way players castled before they changed it to our modern rules. Free castling is so cool!
When a pawn is ready to promote you should be able to just put the desired piece on that square (instead of having to move the pawn there first) and then remove the little hero from the board to celebrate with its teammates.
There have been disputes about queening. This arbiter actually punished a player for not doing just that.
Not sure who I feel worse for, the one who got ruled against, or the one who complained about this!
Why 3 times, why not call it a draw after the first repetition?
Because there are too many GD draws as it is - DOH! One of the ideas (if not necessarily an original intention) of the 3x rule is that you can gain time on the clock by repeating the same position TWICE with the same player to move. Bet you never thought of that one huh?
That's exactly my problem with it, we're here to play chess, not silly buggers.
If there would be no stalemate I would probably timeout, but before that I would get the arbeiter and say that my opponent is playing to win on time and not on mate and I will get declared a draw.
those who don't agree with the stalemate rule don't understand the beauty of chess.
Being able to resist even in the most desperate situations is what makes chess so intense. It also allows for more aggresive play sacrificing a pawn in the middle game, as theorically a K + P vs K can be defended.
those who don't agree with the stalemate rule don't understand the beauty of chess.
Being able to resist even in the most desperate situations is what makes chess so intense. It also allows for more aggresive play sacrificing a pawn in the middle game, as theorically a K + P vs K can be defended.
So you are saying that Emanuel Lasker and Aaron Nimzovich didn't understand the beauty of chess. Do you have any authority for your statement or did you just make it up?
Introduce 'Community Chest' and 'Chance' decks of cards. Lost a piece? Pay £200 to the bank and go straight to jail.
Oh, but they have. 'm not talking about the way pieces move:
eg, in the 80's and 90's there were exceptions to the 50 move rule, that's been changed back
rule 10.2 in it's current form (about claiming draws in time trouble) is less than 10 years old, I'm sure there are more...
those who don't agree with the stalemate rule don't understand the beauty of chess.
Being able to resist even in the most desperate situations is what makes chess so intense. It also allows for more aggresive play sacrificing a pawn in the middle game, as theorically a K + P vs K can be defended.
So you are saying that Emanuel Lasker and Aaron Nimzovich didn't understand the beauty of chess. Do you have any authority for your statement or did you just make it up?
In a quick search on google the only claim that those 2 players wanted to abolish stalemate is...from your posts in the stalemate thread.
Silence.
There should be trashtalking in the game, like the hustler blitz games at washington park.