"The whole point of this thread is proposing rule changes so you can't say that's a "flawed concept"."
I just did.
Your logic is flawed EE. Isn't really logic.
And so is your information.
the forum topic is 'if you could change one rule in chess ....' and so on.
It didn't say 'proposed rule changes'.
Also 'the whole point' is something everybody interprets for himself/herself.
Both 'point' and 'points'. However they like.
Its not something you can ordain EE.
So you're wrong on both counts.
Again.
Try to get something right. If you can.
If You Could Change One Rule In Chess, What Would It Be?
Sort:
Jul 28, 2024
0
#202
Jul 28, 2024
0
#203
They can't make 60 random moves 'very slowly'.
The clock would get one of them on that. Anyway. Even with the increment.
As the rules are now.
Wrong again EE.
Idea:
Try to give a better example of what you think you've got.
If you can.
Jul 30, 2024
0
#204
And there it is again.
EE aggressively deleting several posts resulting in me having several consecutive posts. And Luke-J doing so too ...
You should delete yours in return, like how a chivalrous knight will cast aside his own shield after his opponent's breaks.
Jul 30, 2024
0
#206
Thadriel wrote:
You should delete yours in return, like how a chivalrous knight will cast aside his own shield after his opponent's breaks.
I sometimes have done that.
But its not a 'contest' between me and EE.
Its me disagreeing with him.
Deleting my posts would cause him to spam his same failed arguments.
Or spam them more.
EE is apparently afraid he'll get muted.
Like Optimissed does. Over and over.
Jul 30, 2024
0
#207
Thadriel wrote:
You should delete yours in return, like how a chivalrous knight will cast aside his own shield after his opponent's breaks.
Jess the opening poster is nice.
Most posters are.
And I don't like EE coming in here - knowing he's going to aggresively delete his posts every day he posts.
Doesn't mean I'm 'annoyed' though.
If she wants to - Jess has a way to stop EE doing what he does.
Jul 30, 2024
0
#209
Personally i think Chess is the best game excercise for brains. Chess was created very intelligently (a hundred of years ago). The rules are very properly and meticulously designed and all the pieces are placed properly according to the rules. According to me there can not be and need not be any alteration in the game of chess. But if you were given the opportunity to change a rule, what would it be?
Jul 30, 2024
0
#210
queenRhaenyraa wrote:
For me, it'd be the notion of not being able to castle while the king moves over a space which is attacked. The king should be able to castle over this attacked space - it's not the opponent's turn and just being visible to attack during a move doesn't mean the opponent has an opportunity to somehow nix the king.
Nice post.
That would almost be like 'en passant' only for a King moving sideways.
Why did they include that?
Maybe so it would be easier to say and there wouldn't be questions.
'you can't castle out of or into or through check'
I think they wanted to make sure there wouldn't be too many draws too.
The rook can castle through 'check' like in Qside castling - if b1 is controlled its still OK.
Jul 30, 2024
0
#212
The rules don’t have to make sense (they do anyways), they just have to make the game balanced and fun
Jul 30, 2024
0
#213
- If You Could Change One Rule In Chess, What Would It Be?
"No body contact".
That way, if your opponent was acting like a jerk... you could punch him in the nose.
playerafar wrote:
queenRhaenyraa wrote:
For me, it'd be the notion of not being able to castle while the king moves over a space which is attacked. The king should be able to castle over this attacked space - it's not the opponent's turn and just being visible to attack during a move doesn't mean the opponent has an opportunity to somehow nix the king.
Nice post.
That would almost be like 'en passant' only for a King moving sideways.
Why did they include that?
Maybe so it would be easier to say and there wouldn't be questions.
'you can't castle out of or into or through check'
I think they wanted to make sure there wouldn't be too many draws too.
The rook can castle through 'check' like in Qside castling - if b1 is controlled its still OK.
Undecided on this one
Send a message...
Jul 30, 2024
0
#218
sweardewa wrote:
Send a message...
that's coordinating a specific outcome, illegal by FIDE rules.
Kyobir wrote:
You cannot agree to a draw.
I think the "move 40" thing is absurdly arbitrary, same for the random move counts where more time is added. Make it 50 for both, instead of 40/60, or just ban draw offers entirely, they have to play it out (and in a genuinely drawn position the 50 move rule would kick in anyway so..). I know I'll get bitter downvotes for this like in the other thread but the cockamami time controls in major tournament should be simplified as well. This whole 2 hours each side + 30 mins move 40 + 15 mins and 10 sec increment move 60 is soo stupid. Just have 2 hours + 10 sec increment entire time and that's it. Unreal.
Oh to add to this thread I was going to agree with abolishing the 50 move rule and replacing it with a time limit instead, such as if an endless game is holding up the tournament, the arbiter can step in declare it a draw after a half hour has passed regardless of the increments on the clock. Even some of the more basic Endgame piece combinations can take 70-100+ moves to force checkmate without a pawn moving.
Your logic is very flawed again EE.
Clocks are being used anyway.
The clock flag falling will apply anyway.
Even if the 50 move rule isn't in context.
As for 'endless game' that doesn't happen in tournaments anyway - even with an increment - because of that 50 move rule.
There are no 'endless games' in tournaments anyway so your premise is wrong EE.
The 50 move rules saves chess from it.
Is it a 'perfect' rule?
No because a position that could be won in 70 moves could be drawn because of the 50 move rule.
But they have to have that rule anyway - to prevent endless games.
And the rule does that.
And 50 looks like a good number for it.
---------------
When does it get 'disorganized'?
When there's a time scramble and the two players don't have time to keep a record of their moves and its therefore tough to count them and to prove its 50 if that happens.