Forums

Stalemate needs to be abolished...

Sort:
Avatar of PawnPromoter316
PawnPromoter316
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1041

This forum is not only no longer worth posting in, it's not even worth reading.

Avatar of Kens_Mom
Kens_Mom
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1042
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

You morons dont understand that this debate is about

"which system of rules is better"

Since neither system of rules is broken in anyway, the answer to this question really comes down to which system the chess playing community enjoys more.  Judging from the overwhelming negative feedback you received from both this thread and your chessbase article, the general concensus is that people enjoy the current rules more than yours, suggesting that the current rules is the "better" one.

Avatar of jeffegg2
jeffegg2
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1043

Well, if abolish stalemate, then abolish draw all together. Three move rule: you cannot make the same move a third time, you have to pick a different move. No draw offers, you have to play to the end. if you both lose too much material, then replace material equaly. K vs K and B would become K+p vs K,B,+p.

Avatar of bulletheadbilly
bulletheadbilly
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1044

Can somebody please explain two me, what a "Stalemate" is.?
Also, can I Trade a Pawn for a Horse instead of a Queen ?

and, If My opponate Talks about my mother, should i not be compensated >? 

Avatar of CalamityChristie
CalamityChristie
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1045

"stalemate" is when an irresistible force meets an immovable object, unless you were talkin chess.

Avatar of bulletheadbilly
bulletheadbilly
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1046

Talking about meeting something irresistable..nic avatar don Jaun..

Avatar of Monster_with_no_Name
Monster_with_no_Name
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1047
PawnPromoter316 wrote:

So it's up to the stalemated player to make sure he has a legal move when he has no control over his opponent's moves. That is such a ridiculous comment it's not even worthy of a response.

Funny thing is, you never would have started this thread if you hadn't blown a win because of your carelessness.

Earlier, you accused me of shifting blame and not accepting responsibility. Classic case of projection. You blew a win, and instead of accepting responsibility like a man, you blame your opponent for your own blunder and want to change the rules of chess as they are enjoyed by millions of people. How truly and utterly pathetic

Seriously is this guy this stupid or is he trolling ? I cant tell anymore.

Did you read post #1066 ?

Just out of curiosity ... does anyone else disagree with what I wrote in that post ??

Its simple. The responsibility depends which set of rules we are using.

A kindergarten kid could understand this. Post if you disagree with post #1066

Even Grobe concedes this.. notice how quiet he has gone ...

Avatar of Monster_with_no_Name
Monster_with_no_Name
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1048
PawnPromoter316 wrote:

This forum is not only no longer worth posting in, it's not even worth reading.

I have crushed you like a bug with my arguements thats why you are fleeing and feel the need to give justifications.

Avatar of bulletheadbilly
bulletheadbilly
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1049

can i trade a pawn for a horse instead of a queen?

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1050
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:

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.

Well, heres the thing, you are an idiot, because you machine gun fire post, without thinking things thru at all.

post #1066

reply to it!

There's that word again.

You see, the thing is I did respond to it, in post #1067.  And then again in post #1090.  And once more here for good measure:

TheGrobe wrote:

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?

I'll reserve comment on what I think about you to avoid sinking to your level, but I will say that your shtick is pretty tired and has been for a while.

Avatar of pbeckett
pbeckett
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1051

Checkers is a win for the stalemater.So give up chess and play checkers!Wink

Avatar of BattleManager
BattleManager
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1052
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
BattleManager wrote:
 

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!"

Yes, your solution is illogical because it would change the all concept of chess, do you really think that if the king could step into the check and the king had to be captured we would be playing chess? No, we wouldn't. It completely changes the game. And i'm out of here, i don't like to talk to uneducated people just one recommendation: learn to listen other opinions and stop assuming your opinion as the supreme one. 

Avatar of Monster_with_no_Name
Monster_with_no_Name
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1053
TheGrobe wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:

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.

Well, heres the thing, you are an idiot, because you machine gun fire post, without thinking things thru at all.

post #1066

reply to it!

There's that word again.

You see, the thing is I did respond to it, in post #1067.  And then again in post #1090.  And once more here for good measure:

TheGrobe wrote:

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?

I'll reserve comment on what I think about you to avoid sinking to your level, but I will say that your shtick is pretty tired and has been for a while.

Whats all this nonsense about consistency and inconsistency (what is consistent or inconsistent), could you explain that because I have no idea what you are talking about ?

1. under (stalemate = 1/2) it is the responsibility of the person who is about to deliver the stalemate to ensure the opponent has legal moves left

2. under (stalemate = 1-0) it is 100% YOUR OWN  responsibility to ensure you your self have legal moves left

my preference is 2. I can only move my pieces. I cant move yours. Im trying to destroy your pieces. My pieces are my responsibility, yours are yours. We should each be responsible for ensuring our pieces are not so cramped that we cant move. I dont believe I should have to do that for you! (In chess the idea is to move at every turn, except for the bad exception rule - stalemate)

You prefer 1. Can you give your view as to why you think I should have to calculate at each turn that you are still able to move ? Why should it be my responsibility to allow you to move freely?

Avatar of Iokopoko
Iokopoko
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1054
DonJuan_DeMarco wrote:

"stalemate" is when an irresistible force meets an immovable object, unless you were talkin chess.

Well, in italian "stalemate", id est "Stallo",  is the term that indicates also the situation when the angle of attack of the air by the wing is too big, and the aircraft cannot fly anymore, so it crashes down as a stone ...

Avatar of ChessisGood
ChessisGood
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1055

Not again...

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1056
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:

By the way, there's been a strong argument put forth that the stalemate position is 100% the result of the last player to move (the one who delivered stalemate).  You seem hesitant to address it.  I'd love to hear your take, especially since you're so adamant about holding people to account for their moves....

Well?

This is very simply! Im surprised you didnt understand this:

ok .. Each player is 100% responsible for their own moves.

OK.. under the current rule (ie stalemate = 1/2) it is indeed 100% the responsibility of the person who is about to deliver the stalemate to ensure the opponent has legal moves left! hahaha I have to be courteous to you in a WAR game to check you can still move and waste my time doing so (many of these positions require huge amounts of time to do this!)

"Sure it's consistent under the current rules...,"

under (stalemate = 1-0) it is 100% YOUR OWN  responsibility to ensure you your self have legal moves left!

 "...but if the rules were changed to my liking it would be inconsistent...,"

This is what Ive been arguing all along ... that it should be your own responibility to make sure you have the ability (the power) to make moves on your own turn.

"...and that inconsistency (i.e. resolving it) is why the rules should be changed to my liking"

I hope this clears it up once and for all.

Also do you see how your whole thinking is tainted with the "current rules are the rules, there are no inconsistencies" ? You didnt even factor in my rules into the debate! Youve goto be a bit more broadminded.

I've broken my paraphrasing down for you above since you seem to be a little thick.

As I said, It's one giant circular argument.

Avatar of EricFleet
EricFleet
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1057

The original poster is the most successful troll I've ever met. I saw this thread weeks ago, and cannot believe it managed to make 56 pages.

Avatar of Monster_with_no_Name
Monster_with_no_Name
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1058
TheGrobe wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:

By the way, there's been a strong argument put forth that the stalemate position is 100% the result of the last player to move (the one who delivered stalemate).  You seem hesitant to address it.  I'd love to hear your take, especially since you're so adamant about holding people to account for their moves....

Well?

This is very simply! Im surprised you didnt understand this:

ok .. Each player is 100% responsible for their own moves.

OK.. under the current rule (ie stalemate = 1/2) it is indeed 100% the responsibility of the person who is about to deliver the stalemate to ensure the opponent has legal moves left! hahaha I have to be courteous to you in a WAR game to check you can still move and waste my time doing so (many of these positions require huge amounts of time to do this!)

"Sure it's consistent under the current rules...,"

What is consistent ??? The responsibility ??? With what is it consistent with ???

under (stalemate = 1-0) it is 100% YOUR OWN  responsibility to ensure you your self have legal moves left!

 "...but if the rules were changed to my liking it would be inconsistent...,"

What is inconsistent ??? and with what is it incosistent with ??? 

If the rule is stalemate = 1-0 then its not my responsbility to ensure you have a legal move because Im not punished for it and you are if you dont. Whats not consistent here??? What are you talking about ?

This is what Ive been arguing all along ... that it should be your own responibility to make sure you have the ability (the power) to make moves on your own turn.

"...and that inconsistency (i.e. resolving it) is why the rules should be changed to my liking"

This last paragraph is NOT a "therefore ... this is my conclusion" !! It is summarizing the above into English. Man you need to work on your logic.

I hope this clears it up once and for all.

Also do you see how your whole thinking is tainted with the "current rules are the rules, there are no inconsistencies" ? You didnt even factor in my rules into the debate! Youve goto be a bit more broadminded.

I've broken my paraphrasing down for you above since you seem to be a little thick.

As I said, It's one giant circular argument.

Avatar of nilsenist
nilsenist
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1059

List of the fallacies made by Monster:

1. Proposing an assertion or idea that is not supported by any acceptable arguments. Check.

2. Continually doing ad hominem attacks. Check.

3. Ignoring refutations of his arguments, dodging very nice posts that completely undermine his idea, cherry picking posts to answer. Check.

4. Lying. He is calling this a debate, yet for this to be a debate, all participants must acknowledge that they would change their opinions if their current one would be proven wrong and irrational. Monster is in no way interested in changing his opinion. He is stuffing his shit up our mouths without without even the slightest idea that it might be actually a wrong thing to do. This is not a debate, this is a one-sided doctrine with Monster as the teacher. And don't even try to refute him, because he will call you an idiot. Check.


more to come, as this "debate" progresses. Feel free to add more fallacies to this list.


Avatar of Monster_with_no_Name
Monster_with_no_Name
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1060
MarvinTheRobot wrote:

List of the fallacies made by Monster:

1. Proposing an assertion or idea that is not supported by any acceptable arguments. Check.

2. Continually doing ad hominem attacks. Check.

3. Ignoring refutations of his arguments, dodging very nice posts that completely undermine his idea, cherry picking posts to answer. Check.

4. Lying. He is calling this a debate, yet for this to be a debate, all participants must acknowledge that they would change their opinions if their current one would be proven wrong and irrational. Monster is in no way interested in changing his opinion. He is stuffing his shit up our mouths without without even the slightest idea that it might be actually a wrong thing to do. This is not a debate, this is a one-sided doctrine with Monster as the teacher. And don't even try to refute him, because he will call you an idiot. Check.


more to come, as this "debate" progresses. Feel free to add more fallacies to this list.


All I care about on your list is point number 1.
The rest are so stupid its ......

Please give evidence of my wrong doing in regard to this point 1.