FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
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....
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.
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.
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.
useless discussion on chess.com needs to be abolished
Monster, you have never answered posts #1068 and #1099 by me and #1102by 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.
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.
An important caveat to the prior discussion. Please make of note of this.
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. :-)
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
oops...I already said that......oh well