hmm, I see, and yet our futures are heading towards us at present, meaning of course that for us, time has direction and we are subject to its ravages :D
Insuficient material?
Sort:
baddogno wrote:
It's good to see folks make new friends on the forums, isn't it?
here is rather interesting article on the subject,
The Insufficient Mating Material Rule
To be clear, this thread has been devoted to the insufficient material rule in the case of a time-out FIDE 6.9.
The page you link to refers to the insufficient material rule while the game is still in progress FIDE 9.7
There is a distinction between the two rules.
edit... I am pointing this out solely for the purpose of clarity, so that anyone reading this thread is aware there are two different rules, but there are similarities between them.
He's still arguing this dead issue - why?
Oh, right - he doesn't want anything to stand in the way of winning on time. Not even having zero pieces. How about in real life, we just knock all the pieces off the board while the game is on the opponent's clock? Repeatedly? Surely that's a win!
Rofl. He started another topic crying about how he can't block me. Just too funny.
I saw that. I thought it was babytigrrr. Kco had to spill the beans
Its like a new toy, he'll go block crazy at 1st, with anybody that disagrees with him.
Wait til he finds out he can only block 200 people.
It seems to me that there has been a lot of argument about whether the relevant rule is fair, reasonable, or logical. Regardless of any of these considerations, it is the rule. The rules of any game could be debated for the same reasons endlessly, but the rules are the rules.
But it simply is fair. It simply is reasonable. That's why it is the FIDE rule.
No/Insufficient material? Can't win.
No time? Can't win.
Neither player can win? Draw.
But in the above game, where white has no material, this dood keeps insisting:
I would give white the game because black lost on time
White has no effing pieces. White has no effing pieces. He can't hear it. All he hears is black has no time. So whose argument is it? No one's - he's just being argumentative because he wants nothing to stand in the way of a win on time. Nothing. So: See #67 above.
He wants to make the rule and is basically peeved no one will agree with him.
Which is why I keep saying:
Do Not Play
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
I saw that. I thought it was babytigrrr. Kco had to spill the beans Its like a new toy, he'll go block crazy at 1st, with anybody that disagrees with him.
No so my kind sir, I welcome people who disagree with me because it leads to understanding. What i will not tolerate is reducing threads to utter banality through tabloid style journalism, logical fallacy and duchebagism which i think is a criminality, such trolling is transparent and entirely unnecessary and will not be tolerated. I am very lenient, i issue warnings, a first, a second and sometimes even a third time, giving the nefarious miscreant plenty of time to transcend their egocentricities and stop firing cyber rockets across cyber space. If they can do so, all is forgiven for i rarely hold a grudge for any length of time, otherwise, i push the button on them and they are gone into the oblivion of obscurity while I remain safe in valour's glory!
Yes I am also a poet and remain capable of rational thought.
Lagomorph wrote:
To be clear, this thread has been devoted to the insufficient material rule in the case of a time-out FIDE 6.9.
The page you link to refers to the insufficient material rule while the game is still in progress FIDE 9.7
There is a distinction between the two rules.
edit... I am pointing this out solely for the purpose of clarity, so that anyone reading this thread is aware there are two different rules, but there are similarities between them.
yes in a correspondence game, the situation may be reached where one side has insufficient material to mate and yet the other side may lose the game by time forfeit as far as I can discern.
wu1010 wrote:
Wait til he finds out he can only block 200 people.
actually as far as i can discern, there is only one person that will be blocked on my thread, adios!
Rofl
Well I'm glad you have patients. Most mods will go with 1 warning about trolling, or de-railing a thread. Good luck. >account,>privacy,>user name
[COMMENT DELETED]
You can allways start an opposition thread, but keep it civil.
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
Well I'm glad you have patients. Most mods will go with 1 warning about trolling, or de-railing a thread. Good luck. >account,>privacy,>user name
People must realise why they are being blocked and have no recourse to complain if they are when given a series of warnings, those of us who have children know and understand this, we don't simply arbitrarily block them because they are obnoxious, they must be made to understand that its unacceptable and to get a sense of decorum. Manners maketh the man my old English teacher used to say and civility costs nothing. Zero tolerance of douchbaggery!
It's good to see folks make new friends on the forums, isn't it?