Stalemate needs to be abolished...

Grobe look at this guy... after the post #16 I wrote up .. idiots comes along like this (95% of ppl that post here do something like this) and grafitti my thread... and your suprised I lose my cool and start calling ppl idiots?

Excuse me this is my first post so be indulgent but may I ask, I Thought the instant you consider chess rules questionnable by :

1 . means of comparison to some non-immuable ideas such as real entities.

2 . wanting to have advantages/disadvantages for certain time controlled games. ( different time control = different rules )

3 . saying that "this random rule" isn't in contradiction with "this one" but could help saying that stalemate isn't the right way.

Were all ways of questionning that were irrelevant because chess isn't a set of pieces and a board, chess is an idea and this idea comes with rules that are not in contradiction with each other, and follow pure mathematical logic.

Now if you are going to demonstrate in pure logic that there is a contradiction in Chess then i shall listen. But if people are just going to keep babbling about why they should or should not think about creating a new game based on chess where stalemate has been abolished then there's just no point. All that will achieve is dividing a perfectly fine community.

Else i'm open to pure logic so fire on !

The whole thing is baseless anyway, since he calls anyone who disagrees with him an idiot regardless of the quality of their argument.  Holding up the thinner posts as an example of why he "loses his cool and starts calling people idiots" doesn't go very far to explain why he seems incapable of having a rational discussion at all in the first place.

That's a pretty circular argument:

"Sure it's consistent under the current rules, but if the rules were changed to my liking it would be inconsistent, and that inconsistency (i.e. resolving it) is why the rules should be changed to my liking"

Do you even hear yourself?

The OP's position that it's 100 percent the responsibility of a player to make sure he can move is absurd. No its not. The only way that could be accomplished is if the player said to his opponent, "No, don't move there; I won't have a legal move. You have to play a different move so I'll be able to move."Did you give this more than 2 secs of thought? Are are you just really dim ? Youve got the horse and cart back to front! Read post #1066 THIS TIME SLOWWLLLLLLYYYYYYY. You keep not reading my posts and putting stupid words in my mouth. If stalemate is a win to the person delivering it then it is so obviously the case that the loser had 100% responsibility to make sure he had moves! Do you not agree with this ???? The result PUNISHES him for it, therefore he is responsible for it! AND the result does NOT punish the person who delivered the stalemate therefore he doesnt care if you dont have moves!!

If , on the other hand, stalemate is a draw BOTH players are PUNISHED (to only .5 point) so the player delivering it was PUNISHED for not ensuring the other player had moves left to make. (IE HE IS RESPONSIBLE because of the result.)

Maybe that'd work in solitaire chess but one player is not responsible for another player's moves.

As for allowing the king to be captured, that would totally invalidate all the previous games of chess that have been played - Here we go!!!!!!!!!! current RULES ARE THE RULES much more so (obviously) than simply saying stalemate should be a win for the player who delivers it. And it shouldn't be a win because the player who leaves his opponent without a legal move should be punished for his carelessness. For the last time (from me), the stalemated player is 0 percent responsible for not being able to move

You can't even respond to the charge that you're incapable of discussion without calling people idiots without... you guessed it..., calling me an idiot.

Why there is so much interest in abolishing stalemate? Stalemate either happens because:

a) the person messed up and didn't know how to check mate.

b) the "guy on the defensive" made some tactic that led into a stalemate position(i've seen this many times and it's beautiful.

Do you know why I called you idiot before ??
Let me explain why you are an idiot, if you didnt get it the first time!

The last time I called you an idiot, I mentioned that you didnt read post#16 and you put a one line throw away stupid comment that "no!"

NOW.. you STILL havent read pos#16 and come back with a stupid throwaway paragraph that 95% of idiots like you have been posting thru-out the thread.

You morons dont understand that this debate is about

"which system of rules is better"

NOT "which system of rules is the current rules"

Just stop posting altogether!

Are you serious? Yes Do you want to play chess or other game? Yes now your starting to understand!! Good boy! Your solution is simply illogical, being able to capture the king and stepping into check makes no sense whatsoever why? you cant just claim things and not support it with anything ? and that post didn't change my view. stubborn fools never change their minds, thats why we still have people all around the world still practicing all sorts of supersticious and supernatural nonsense from milleniums ago, evey weekend.

And you seriously need to grow up, i hate these people that come to the internet and act like they're badasses. Stop disrespecting the others if you want respect!

This coming from a guy, who to my post#16, just replies "no, just no!"