useless discussion on chess.com needs to be abolished
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
Monster, you have never answered posts #1068 and #1099 by me and #1102
by Kens_Mom. Say something, don't disappoint me.
Let me save you both the trouble of having to wait:
You're both idiots who couldn't possibly comprehend the depths of Monster's intellect.
And you are all victims of a good troll. Even after being informed that you are victims of a troll, you continue to "debate". At this point, I will simply marvel at Monster's abilities and that folks still haven't learned how to deal with trolls.
EricFleet wrote:
And you are all victims of a good troll. Even after being informed that you are victims of a troll, you continue to "debate". At this point, I will simply marvel at Monster's abilities and that folks still haven't learned how to deal with trolls.
Unfortunately, I haven't the self-discipline to keep myself away from this thread. I'm afraid you'll just have to leave the rest of us fools in purgatory while you enjoy a more meaningful forum existence. :(
On a more serious note, if you take a look at his past forum activities as well as his first several posts in this thread, you can tell that the OP genuinely wants to change the rules. For this reason, I doubt that the OP's intent is to troll, as much as it may look like it is.
Indeed, both the OP and @Winnie want to exchange thoughtful prose, in the hopes that other members of our hallowed community will contribute judiciously.
And if you believe that, I have a bridge in New York that you might like to buy. Good price too.
TheGrobe wrote:
Let me save you both the trouble of having to wait:
You're both idiots who couldn't possibly comprehend the depths of Monster's intellect.
An important caveat to the prior discussion. Please make of note of this.
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1069
No, the OP isn't a troll. He has some demonstrated social inadequacies but, seemingly, has so much personal investment in not just in post #16, but in it's reprint at Chessbase, that he's blind to any opinion or rationale other than his own (in fact, it's clear he either doesn't read them or selectively ignores them). While his post #16 has some factual errors that have been pointed out time and again, and is basically a paean to or a paraphrase of Wikipedia's section on the topic in it's Stalemat article, since Wiki mentioned the article by T.H. Tyler published in the BCM in 1941, I thought it might be worthwhile to reproduce the article here for anyone, including the OP, who might want to actually read Theodore Tyler's article.
(note that Tyler mentions "Capablanca, Alekhine and others" suggesting reducing draws by making chess more complex. Although the OP cited this line, drawn from third party sources, as an argument to abolish Stalemate, it means almost exactly the opposite. Capablanca wanted to add more squares and pieces, not to to do away with draws but because he felt chess was almost solved; I don't know what Alekhine ever proposed, but abolishing stalemate, while it does reduce draws, simplifies chess rather than makes it more complex. So the arguments are incompatible.
Also note that Tyler's strange statement that stalemate as a draw has no historical basis is rather disingenuous since he based his "historical evidence" on a games that weren't chess, but only possible precursors which had different pieces, different boards, different moves, different rules. The truth, in fact, is that there is more practical historical evidence to treat stalemate as a loss for the giver, but, as Murray pointed out, makes even less sense.)
The logic, or lack thereof, in Tyler's rather terse arguments, I'll leave for each individual to judge for him (or her) self.
Tyler sounds like a lawyer with a limited knowledge of the royal game, who wrote a piece for intellectuals reading New Yorker magazine.
Though surely I am dead wrong. 
Thanks for yet another judicious summing up, @Batgirl. We remain indebted to you, for both your level-headedness, and patience.
Abolish all senseless draws!!!
DO NOT CALL ME AN IDIOT, ZBORG!!!
JUSTIN BEIBER HAS BEEN SUMMONED TO BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF YOU! NOW HAVE THE CRAP BEAT OUT OF YOU, ZBORG! YOU, ZBORG WILL PAY! YOU SHALL NOW BE KNOWN AS THE IDIOT ZBORG! NOW, BATMAN HAS BEEN ASKED TO TORTURE YOU! AND BE PREPARED WHEN SUPERMAN PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE AND BREAKS YOUR JAW AND NOSE! HA HA HA! BEWARE MY WRATH!
Wow! the typefaces are getting bigger & the colours become bolder.
Monster is serious in intent (Change Stalemate Rule in Chess) else likely wouldn't have devoted so much of his time to this topic.
''Idiots & sheepies'' are fairly soft put-downs compared with how others are currently expressing themselves. :-)
Sep 5, 2012
0
#1074
Theodore Tyler was a very strong chess player and, in fact, a lawyer also.
stalemate is stupid since...uh...um...I have no idea actually
stalemate is stupid since...uh...um...I have no idea actually
oops...I already said that......oh well
It is very clear that Capablanca's goal in creating Capablanca chess was to make it harder to draw. Capablanca spoke of the "draw death" of chess and stated that a modern master could draw at will as white. Capablanca felt that by making the game more complicated the stronger side had a better chance of outplaying and beating his opponent. I am surprised to see Alekhine's name mentioned since Alekhine expressely didn't believe in the draw death of chess.
T.H. Taylor certainly had more than "a limited knowledge of the royal game". It is hard to understand how anyone could read his article on stalemate and think that. He shows an understanding of how stalemate affects the endgame. Taylor was a strong master and played internationally. He once won the British correspondence championship and once finished second (to Sultra Kahn). Taylor played in the 1936 Nottingham Tournament which was one of the strongest tournaments ever. Taylor was bind and played with the use of a tactile board.
batgirl wrote:
No, the OP isn't a troll. He has some demonstrated social inadequacies but, seemingly, has so much personal investment in not just in post #16, correct but in it's reprint at Chessbase, that he's blind to any opinion or rationale other than his own (in fact, it's clear he either doesn't read them or selectively ignores them). false, Im constantly replying to arguements, *that I havent already addressed 3 time* IE "you lost, now your angry" "the rules are the rules" "the rule is fine because it is a technically speaking logical system of rules" have been brought up 100 times While his post #16 has some factual errors that have been pointed out time and again I dont see how there could be any factual errors there (my system of rules is totally valid "technically speaking logical system of rules" ), and is basically a paean to or a paraphrase of Wikipedia's section on the topic in it's Stalemat article No its not, since Wiki mentioned the article by T.H. Tyler published in the BCM in 1941 I didnt read this before I posted my idea.. I dont like how the guy thinks, its too wordy.. I like simple linear logical arguements, I thought it might be worthwhile to reproduce the article here for anyone, including the OP, who might want to actually read Theodore Tyler's article. Ill mention again you seem to have a history "fetish", I dont care about history, I care about logical arguements. It doesnt matter "when" or "who" as long as its right.
(note that Tyler mentions "Capablanca, Alekhine and others" suggesting reducing draws by making chess more complex. Seeing as we're playing the history game... you left out Nimzo! the modern father of chess.. the man who logically thought out "MY SYSTEM" (a man after my own heart) He wanted stalemate abolished as well. Although the OP cited this line, drawn from third party sources, as an argument to abolish Stalemate, it means almost exactly the opposite. Capablanca wanted to add more squares and pieces, not to to do away with draws but because he felt chess was almost solved; I don't know what Alekhine ever proposed, but abolishing stalemate, while it does reduce draws, simplifies chess rather than makes it more complex. So the arguments are incompatible.
Also note that Tyler's strange statement that stalemate as a draw has no historical basis is rather disingenuous since he based his "historical evidence" on a games that weren't chess, but only possible precursors which had different pieces, different boards, different moves, different rules. The truth, in fact, is that there is more practical historical evidence to treat stalemate as a loss for the giver, but, as Murray pointed out, makes even less sense.)
The logic, or lack thereof, in Tyler's rather terse arguments, I'll leave for each individual to judge for him (or her) self.
You were given 50 pages of counter-arguments. Please stop being deliberately ignorant.
The rest is not stupid. You are again going ad hominem, which proves my point.