Whoever doesnt like the rules of chess should just quit, dont change the rules according to what you want. And btw, Stalemate wont become abolished, it will take to much work to do it, for the whole world I mean.
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
Notice the title of the thread. It says it NEEDS to be abolished, but it doesn't NEED to. He only wants it to. Nothing bad happens if it doesn't get abolished. So the title of the thread is wrong and the thread should be ignored!
lol k.
I have surveyed many of my casual chess playing friends on this issue over the years. The general consensus among them is they would take the game more seriously if the stalemate rule was abolished as suggested. They claim among the unbrainwashed casual everyday citizen, the rule is obviously counter intuitive and plainly wrong. The object of the game is to trap the king. Stalemate = trapped king = win. It's really just common sense.
The guy that wrote the title probably didnt expect this much attention. Itll of been a retortion of a rule that caught him out. But all the same these rule change threads certainly get the attention. An absurd kinda thing. Ive heard that before somewhere...
Hmmm....
What's next? This same argument regarding perpetual check?
"Well, my forces were vastly superior and he has to keep moving the same piece back and forth, so clearly, it's a win for me."
I was thinking maybe...128 squares
fabelhaft wrote:
It's checkmate that should be abolished.
are you stupid?
BURNTPIZZA wrote:
I have surveyed many of my casual chess playing friends on this issue over the years. The general consensus among them is they would take the game more seriously if the stalemate rule was abolished as suggested. They claim among the unbrainwashed casual everyday citizen, the rule is obviously counter intuitive and plainly wrong. The object of the game is to trap the king. Stalemate = trapped king = win. It's really just common sense.
If you read the whole thread you'll see that all this has been answered many times.
I personally never met a chess player concerned about stalemate rule which indicates that it is not an issue.
BURNTPIZZA wrote:
I have surveyed many of my casual chess playing friends on this issue over the years. The general consensus among them is they would take the game more seriously if the stalemate rule was abolished as suggested. They claim among the unbrainwashed casual everyday citizen, the rule is obviously counter intuitive and plainly wrong. The object of the game is to trap the king. Stalemate = trapped king = win. It's really just common sense.
I think the two key words there are "casual" and "friends". Casual because real chessplayers do not seriously want to take out a basic rule like that. Friends will agree to what their friends say if reasonably put, more often than not. I am sure you didn't stop to weigh the pros and cons of the argument. A conversation on the lines of "How stupid is this: you are surrounded but we draw?" does not count as surveying. Actually polling a large number of opinions of serious chessplayers would count as surveying.
When I was a beginner I once trapped the king without check and i thought i won.
batgirl wrote:
I've never surveyed my casual (nor initmate) friends for anything ever.
Are you so sure they'd say the same thing? You should check to be sure.
Off.. To '' survey '' my friends. bbl.
I like nice contours
Why are there 616 posts on this stupid question?
Jul 20, 2012
0
#539
TheGrobe wrote:
batgirl wrote:
I've never surveyed my casual (nor initmate) friends for anything ever.
Are you so sure they'd say the same thing? You should check to be sure.
I would if I cared what they collectively thought.
IF Pigs could fly, THEN pork would surely be a low fat food. Q.E.D.