Props to the OP. This is an excellent suggestion- why a game should be decided by the stupid checkmate anachronism, and not by concerte proof which of the players eats more jellybeans?
Please get rid of that stupid checkmate rule !!
Sort:
snakesbelly wrote:
noways man ,msjaded loves me
Indeed, INDEED! What am I saying, she comes for you!
O-Ren loves no one.
More importantly, in the people's republic of chessydom, who needs a king? Let the forces unite and overthrow the monarchist thinking.
pfren wrote:
Props to the OP. This is an excellent suggestion- why a game should be decided by the stupid checkmate anachronism, and not by concerte proof which of the players eats more jellybeans?
Also could we still consider a stalemate is a draw? More jellybeans I guess.
Jul 8, 2012
0
#27
Oh wait, I'm sorry - am I in the wrong thread? What is this one about? Yes, yes - please abolish checkmate and snakes and msjenned - you make a cute couple.
hocam siyahla beyaz kardeştir... ben de karşıyım mat kuralına.barış için insanlık için batsın bu dünya dıd dıd dıdıdı dıdıdıyyy...
digitalknight wrote:
I think this idea has merit for the children. We must consider their self esteem.
Lol, nice one. 
Jul 8, 2012
0
#30
pfren wrote:
Props to the OP. This is an excellent suggestion- why a game should be decided by the stupid checkmate anachronism, and not by concerte proof which of the players eats more jellybeans?
If you're gonna do that, at least get some Jelly Belly or Jolly Rancher J-beans, and no licorice ones either...
What if all the pieces just provided an example for us, and learned to coexist? I have tried it out on various boards, there is enough space for more than one piece per square.
plotsin wrote:
I really, really hope that this is a joke. The whole point of the game is to surround the enemy king whilst keeping your own king safe. If you don't like the check-mate rule in regular chess then you deserve a 501 rating...
@ll-oliveira: If you have a huge material advantage and you lose, then it's your own fault for blowing it. If you want an example of this in real life, then research the battle of Littlebig Horn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn
It was a joke, Sherlock. What I really, really hope is that you were joking too, because if not, than you are terrible in noticing sarcasm.
I was mocking snakebelly, that famous troll, the same thing the OP did, as she was just making a parody of all the nonsense "change this rule" threads.
How are people going to win their games? Take the king?
I would quit chess if you can because that would games dull and boring. It would be like a more complicated version of checkers. And I hate checkers.
Jul 8, 2012
0
#34
They win by seeing who is the better fighter in the ring.
This was in the middle of one of my last live games, he kicked me in the shins after I stuck my tongue out at him. I guess sticking out the tongue is not much of a taunt, eh? 
BirdBrain wrote:
They win by seeing who is the better fighter in the ring.
This was in the middle of one of my last live games, he kicked me in the shins after I stuck my tongue out at him. I guess sticking out the tongue is not much of a taunt, eh?
lol I guess not 
.
The checkmate rule has some deffinite flaws. How are you proposing to fix the flaws though? By demolishing the rule! If you destroyed everything in the world that had a flaw what would you have left think about it!
If you do change that rule, put one in that ice chests can be brought to the games. How will we ever go to lunch?
Mr Snakey says, "It will be pistols at sunrise i believe."
I like to be there too. Name the place. I will not need guns. I will kung-fu you.
there you have it gattaca msjaded is going to kung-fu you!
Guess the honor is for you, snake.