It is telling that Blake should zero in on your statement as ad hominem after letting innumerable blatant ad hominem attacks from monster slide.
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
TheGrobe wrote:
It's not an ad hominem attack at all, it's a summation of Monster's behaviour and all fact. I don't think the intent was to tie his character to his argument.
Ad hominem attacks the man and not logic of the argument. A summy of Monster's behavior isn't a summary of the thread at all. An ad hominem attack is a logical falacy and the truth of the irrelavancy is not the test.
Or "This Thread" has become ridiculous. Again, though, that happened early on as well.
The intent was not at all to tie the OP's character to his behavior. He may be a great guy; I don't know him. But on this particular point (stalemate), his comments and attitude have been disgraceful as anyone who reads even the most recent posts can ascertain.
What was the OP's response to my correct statement that stalemate is 100 percent due to the player delivering stalemate? He had nothing, other than an ad hominem attack.
An ad hominem attack is more than just attacking the man as opposed to the argument, it's an attempt to rebut the argument by attacking the man, such as when monster calls everyone idiots who can't comprehend the brilliance of his proposal.
Another poster pointed out that if the king were allowed to be captured, that is if the check and checkmate rules were eliminated, then awarding a full point for stalemate would be logical.
At least that's a credible attempt to justify the OP's position. But in that case - eliminating check and checkmate and allowing the king to be captured - stalemate wouldn't exist!
You'd also wind up with a lot of cases where a player could win while his king was attacked (in check.)
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
The OP's argument might make sense if the stalemated player was responsible for not being able to move and violating one of the rules of chess. But he's not responsible for it; the other player is. I see the draw not as awarding a half-point to the stalemated player as much as deducting a half-point from the player responsible for stalemate. And the player responsible for stalemate is the one who leaves his opponent without the ability to move.
Your victim mentality is showing... The person in a weak position is never at fault! The bleeding heart socialist fallacy. Im also guessing your a woman.. they love shifting blame and never taking any resposibility .
Can you explain why the person who cant move should have 0% responsibility for not being able to move (thus violating another chess rule, you have to move) ??
You sound like a single mum thats just screwed your husband out of 1/2! of everything he owned.
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
The person unable to move has zero percent responsibility for being unable to move because his opponent's last move was 100 percent responsible for that predicament
Ad hominem attack by the OP followed by crickets chirping because he can't rebut that stalemate is 100 percent the fault of the player who delivers it
"The person unable to move has zero percent responsibility for being unable to move because his opponent's last move was 100 percent responsible for that predicament"
+1
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
To all the fools who want to comment: "your saying this because you drew a blitz game" of course it is you fool.
Have you ever had a girlfriend?
pynchon45 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
To all the fools who want to comment: "your saying this because you drew a blitz game" of course it is you fool.
Have you ever had a girlfriend?
Seems like we've finally found monster's intellectual equal.
theoreticalboy wrote:
Seems like we've finally found monster's intellectual equal.
Or potential girlfriend, depending on how you interpret the question.
Have you ever stalemated a girlfriend is an important question too?
I believe by that point the correct term is "wife".
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
Another poster pointed out that if the king were allowed to be captured, that is if the check and checkmate rules were eliminated, then awarding a full point for stalemate would be logical.
At least that's a credible attempt to justify the OP's position. But in that case - eliminating check and checkmate and allowing the king to be captured - stalemate wouldn't exist!
You are weird....
You said you've read post 16...
Where I was the one to suggest the King capture rule.
Can I add you to the list of goldfish memory people ?
Maybe stop your attacks on me and start arguing against my post #16
I'm not attacking you at all; I was pointing out what another poster said. I am disappointed you haven't explained how stalemate isn't 100 percent the fault of the person who delivers it.
As for being "weird" and a "goldfish," that's just more ad hominem attacks from you because your argument's been blown out of the water for the 100th time. When you can't support your premise (that stalemate is the fault of the player who was stalemated), all you've got left is personal insults. Pretty sad
Maybe he missed a period and it should read "This thread has become. Ridiculous."