I'd prefer to keep the penguins in one place, but if you insist;
,_walking/http/0e7965da26.jpg)
"ZUGZWANG of the clock" anti-stalemate solution
Sort:
please lets have a discussion my friends...
no trolling please. If you dont like the topic please move on.
Thank you my friends.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
please lets have a discussion my friends...
no trolling please. If you dont like the topic please move on.
Thank you my friends.
Hilarious!
in chinese chess... stalemate is a loss...
these guys arent even trolls.... they are forum terrorists... trying to stop people having their opinions heard
Aug 22, 2011
0
#10
@OP: Your suggestion is one of several topics recently to suggest doing away with a rule that, in most people's opinion, does not need to be abolished. Stalemates are not bad. A stalemate is a draw, and changing it from a draw would drastically alter the strategy of the game as a whole. Knowing ahead of time that pursuing a stalemate is utterly useless, because it would equal a loss, would entirely change the direction that many games would take. Your suggestion proposes opening a can of worms, and you don't seem to understand all of its potential repercussions (with all due respect).
Your idea has its root in the clock, which also greatly hurts your idea's chance to successfully catch on. Chess clocks were never meant to overrule or dictate the game. They are only used to prevent games from becoming outlandishly long; i.e., they merely regulate the flow of the game. They should never be used to dictate results, except when a player actually runs out of time.
The "terrorists," as you call them, posting these enormous pictures are voicing their sizable contempt for your idea, because they are tired of seeing this topic discussed yet again. The general opinion seems to be: Why abolish a good rule? Most people are not against stalemates and other draws, but rather they accept and embrace them as, simply, part of the game of Chess.
whirlwind2011 wrote:
@OP: Your suggestion is one of several topics recently to suggest doing away with a rule that, in most people's opinion, does not need to be abolished. Stalemates are not bad. A stalemate is a draw, and changing it from a draw would drastically alter the strategy of the game as a whole. Knowing ahead of time that pursuing a stalemate is utterly useless, because it would equal a loss, would entirely change the direction that many games would take. Your suggestion proposes opening a can of worms, and you don't seem to understand all of its potential repercussions (with all due respect).
Your idea has its root in the clock, which also greatly hurts your idea's chance to successfully catch on. Chess clocks were never meant to overrule or dictate the game. They are only used to prevent games from becoming outlandishly long; i.e., they merely regulate the flow of the game. They should never be used to dictate results, except when a player actually runs out of time.
The "terrorists," as you call them, posting these enormous pictures are voicing their sizable contempt for your idea, because they are tired of seeing this topic discussed yet again. The general opinion seems to be: Why abolish a good rule? Most people are not against stalemates and other draws, but rather they accept and embrace them as, simply, part of the game of Chess.
The most sensible post in the topic but the OP wont listen and continues to make stalemate related topics
Aug 22, 2011
0
#13
@the_villa: Yes, since I posted that, I have read up on his seeming resistance to many people's logic.
Oh boy! Another "let's get rid of stalemate" thread!
ok... ive killed the trolls with my "light gun"
thread can resume.
In chess we have to make moves, within a time limit.
When I am in ZUGZWANG I am "forced to move" and "commit suicide"
A person who is in stalemate has "trouble moving" ... in other words he is in zugzwang.... we should then... logically... force him to "commit suicide" as well.... "suicide of the clock"
ie let his clock run out ... until he moves.