<<Read again, I never said that a player should be declared the winner because he has more pieces, I said that he should be declared the winner because he would kill the opponent's king in the next move.>>
And I told you why such an idea is daft. The game cannot get that far. Simple as that.
Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever
Sort:
Yes, that should be legal!
If you are dumb enough to not notice that you are putting your king in a threatened square you deserve to pay for it.
At some clubs they actually legalized this move when playing Blitz or bullet.
That would be a chess variant. Not chess then.
Optimissed escribió:
<<Read again, I never said that a player should be declared the winner because he has more pieces, I said that he should be declared the winner because he would kill the opponent's king in the next move.>>
And I told you why such an idea is daft. The game cannot get that far. Simple as that.
The game should end when a king is killed. Imagine how satisfying would it be to see how your pieces kill the king.
IN some clubs they have actually legalized this move when playing blitz or bullet.. You must be trolling.
In blitz/bullet if you put your king in check/don't block the check, you lose the game. standard in all clubs
Aug 28, 2017
0
#27
checkmate wins not stalemate, the pieces are not alive so you can't kill them, put a leash on your imagination man.
Oh Dear, why some of you lack basic common sense?
When I say "Kill" I mean capture the piece. You really felt smart by telling me that the pieces are not alive? Oh Gosh!
Aug 28, 2017
0
#29
that was the thickest comment ever!
yep, floating-duck was bang on about you not quite being chimp level.
Aug 28, 2017
0
#30
anyway just play friendly games away from the Internet and when you blunder into a stalemate just tell your opponent you won and leg it.
I think Pashak is sexist. He's using a deflection strategy to make us think he's only concerned about our lack of marbles.
Nadia-Hovadova escribió:
that was the thickest comment ever!
yep, floating-duck was bang on about you not quite being chimp level.
It is your second day here but you know what that twerp was babbling 3 months ago. Interesting...
Optimissed escribió:
I think Pashak is sexist. He's using a deflection strategy to make us think he's only concerned about our lack of marbles.
LOL!! I was about to simply ignore you, but I am actually curious about how far your stupidity can go.
Please tell me, why do you consider me a sexist?
There are no legitimate arguments left open to us, after your magnificent comment! This argument is therefore a draw! 
You wish it is a draw. Your "sexist" comment was the most ridiculous blunder I have seen in a long time. You already lost this boy.
The brilliance of your comments may leave us dumbfounded, but it's already been declared a draw!
It is simply to make the game more complicated, and give the losing side hope. Because without hope he has nothing.
Aug 28, 2017
0
#38
Pashak1989 wrote:
The objective of the game is to capture/kill the enemy's king. This is why when there is checkmate the game is over, because no matter what is done, the king will be captured in the next move.
Stalemate is a situation where the king is not in check, but regardless of where it moves, he will be captured in the next move. So basically a stalemate is a mate but without a check.
Yet for some reason, instead of the game being over and the person with more pieces is declared winner by stalemate, the game is considered a draw!!!
Why is it considered a draw if the king will be brutally destroyed in the next move?
I do not know who created the chess rules, but that person must have been a really bad player to the point that he decided to invent a stupid rule in order to still have a chance of drawing after all the blunders he made during the game.
I like this theory... but you don't want to leave the king nowhere to go, you want to mate him.
Aug 28, 2017
0
#39
if you put your king in check it will get get captured (checkmate)