You're the slow learner, dingleberry.
Yes, you're arguing for stalemate to be 1-0. But why are you making that argument? Because you think stalemate as 1/2 is unfair. Why do you think it's unfair? Because you can't accept that the player who delivers stalemate is 100 percent responsible for it.
Maybe you were so traumatized by blowing a win in that meaningless blitz game that the wires in your noggin got crossed
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.
Please respond to #1120
Really seems a waste of my time, don't you think?
sherlock : hmmmmmmmmmmmm
watson: whats that sherlock ?
sherlock: this guy has been machine gun fire posting his non-sense in here from the beginning, and now he is concerned that its a waste of his time all of a sudden ... its a little...
watson: what sherlock, what is it ?
sherlock: he is full of $hit... he got owned , totally schooled and cant respond, and this is his way of trying to save face, what a loser.. poor fool, this post should shut him up.
watson: excellent, another case closed.
mrs hudson: tea is ready
sherlock: ahhhhh, perfect timing mrs hudson, impecable as always.
How is bishop to butt on move 29 "technically logically consistent with the ruleset"?
Do the rules permit chess pieces to leave the board without being captured in other instances? You're turning into a babbling fool and I (thankfully) haven't read the vast majority of your posts. Your argument becomes less persuasive the more you make it. Post 16 was thought provoking but now you're just posting nonsensical gibberish - and all because you can't/won't admit that stalemate is not the fault of the player who was stalemated.
But keep trying. Looking at your psychological meltdown is like looking at a car wreck - I'm ashamed to do it but can't help it.
On the contary bishops up the ass on move 29 could be a pleasurable addition to the game for both players. Much like the stalemate rule it would add complexity to the game. In the opening players might opt to trade off bishops early on or not depending on if they wish to instert them into there rectums. Bishops may be used less after move 29 on account of being caked in excrement or stuck. In conclusion I feel that this is a interesting new rule that should be considered.
On the topic of the stalemate rule I would further point out the stalemate is no more important to chess than any other rule as each rule is nessecery but not individualy sufficent to give chess its complexity that I and many other people enjoy.
Monster, it's a waste of my time because I shouldn't have to hand hold you through something that's really pretty simple to understand. I'm afraid your comprehension issues are your problem, not mine. Maybe try reading a little slower to see if that helps.
Good luck.
BUA29. (Bishops up the ass on move 29.) is logically consistent with the rule set, as the pieces would be moved afterwards (see the touch move rule).
stalemate is completely fair. it annoys a lot of people
I know one completely annoyed by it.
How is bishop to butt on move 29 "technically logically consistent with the ruleset"?
Do the rules permit chess pieces to leave the board without being captured in other instances? You're turning into a babbling fool and I (thankfully) haven't read the vast majority of your posts. Your argument becomes less persuasive the more you make it. Post 16 was thought provoking but now you're just posting nonsensical gibberish - and all because you can't/won't admit that stalemate is not the fault of the player who was stalemated.
But keep trying. Looking at your psychological meltdown is like looking at a car wreck - I'm ashamed to do it but can't help it.
any EXCEPTION rule is logically ok, because what you are saying is:
1. this is the rule, EXCEPT [insert anything you wish]
stalemate is just one of these exception rules. It is the only bad exception rule in chess.
Hey .. by the way, if I tell you, you win, you're right, would you stop posting here? thats how they do it in kindergarten isnt it ?
"The bishop to ass move on move 29" is my way of showing you that any exception rule can be "technically logically consistent with the ruleset" but it is a terrible move NONE THE LESS.... stalemate is the same. What the bishop to ass rule is meant to show, that you cant argue the rule is good, JUST because its "logically consistent"
Your other point....
Actually...there is a hierarchy of rules.. eg
Checkmate/stalemate trumps them all,
If your time runs out that will also cut off the rest of the rules
etc
the rules are like a computer program
if -> then
if -> then
if -> then
there is a hierarchy
Anyway the other stuff Ive addressed before.. and the stalemate rule does turn the [you must move] and the [your turn, clock runs out, you lose] rules on their heads.
I understand where you are trying to get at with the bishop-to-butt rule, but how are you comparing that with stalemate? The reason bishop-to-butt doesn't belong in chess is because the behavior is inappropriate for the board game. How is the stalemate rule the same? It creates a functioning and enjoyable game, which is all that you can ask for.
Also, where did you get this heirarchy of rules for the rules of chess? I'm curious because I've never come across it before. Did you get if off of wikipedia? FIDE? Or did you just make it up? Please enlighten me.
You're actually missing the point I made with the basketball analogy, which is that the logic behind any particular rule is irrelevant to whether it's good or not. Others have echoed this in recent posts and I've elaborated a bit on this in my own post, so I won't go any further into it here.
If you ask nicely and give me a cookie, I'll consider it lol
Monster, it's a waste of my time because I shouldn't have to hand hold you through something that's really pretty simple to understand. I'm afraid your comprehension issues are your problem, not mine. Maybe try reading a little slower to see if that helps.
Good luck.
scoundrals handbook of debating techniques..
last resort rule: when you are totally lost, pretend you have the moral high ground and exit quickly.
For anyone in doubt go back and read the exchange (I posted the post # a few posts back)
"The bishop to ass move on move 29" is my way of showing you that any exception rule can be "technically logically consistent with the ruleset" but it is a terrible move NONE THE LESS.... stalemate is the same. What the bishop to ass rule is meant to show, that you cant argue the rule is good, JUST because its "logically consistent"
Your other point....
Actually...there is a hierarchy of rules.. eg
Checkmate/stalemate trumps them all,
If your time runs out that will also cut off the rest of the rules
etc
the rules are like a computer program
if -> then
if -> then
if -> then
there is a hierarchy
Anyway the other stuff Ive addressed before.. and the stalemate rule does turn the [you must move] and the [your turn, clock runs out, you lose] rules on their heads.
I understand where you are trying to get at with the bishop-to-butt rule But this post shows you dont.. , but how are you comparing that with stalemate? The reason bishop-to-butt doesn't belong in chess is because the behavior is inappropriate for the board game. How is the stalemate rule the same? It creates a functioning and enjoyable game, which is all that you can ask for.
Also, where did you get this heirarchy of rules for the rules of chess? Its obvious, if a rule cuts other rules off its of a higher priority (eg checkmate cuts off the you must move rule) I'm curious because I've never come across it before. Did you get if off of wikipedia? FIDE? Or did you just make it up? Please enlighten me. Again, I dont need authorities to tell me these things, I like to work them out for myself.
You're actually missing the point I made with the basketball analogy, which is that the logic behind any particular rule is irrelevant (1 paragraph ago you were telling me why bishop to but doesnt "belong" and how its "not appropriate"..... I think now you understand why I made up that rule) to whether it's good or not. Others have echoed this in recent posts and I've elaborated a bit on this in my own post, so I won't go any further into it here.
"I'm curious because I've never come across it before. Did you get if off of wikipedia? FIDE? Or did you just make it up? Please enlighten me. Again, I dont need authorities to tell me these things, I like to work them out for myself."
That may well be the problem (besides that you drew a blitz game from a winning position 2 months ago). Chess as has been said and restated here is a system of rules that creates a fun and entertaining game. As long as people are having fun it doesnt matter. For example you might ask a child why the rule for stick in the mud are so. Clearly if you were stuck in the mud someone crawling through your legs would not free you indeed both of you would most likey be stuck in the mud. So why then are the rules so? Because it is fun.
To go back to the stalemate rule the rules are so because it leads to a more complex and hence a more enjoyable game for the majority of players.
"The bishop to ass move on move 29" is my way of showing you that any exception rule can be "technically logically consistent with the ruleset" but it is a terrible move NONE THE LESS.... stalemate is the same. What the bishop to ass rule is meant to show, that you cant argue the rule is good, JUST because its "logically consistent"
Your other point....
Actually...there is a hierarchy of rules.. eg
Checkmate/stalemate trumps them all,
If your time runs out that will also cut off the rest of the rules
etc
the rules are like a computer program
if -> then
if -> then
if -> then
there is a hierarchy
Anyway the other stuff Ive addressed before.. and the stalemate rule does turn the [you must move] and the [your turn, clock runs out, you lose] rules on their heads.
I understand where you are trying to get at with the bishop-to-butt rule But this post shows you dont.. , but how are you comparing that with stalemate? The reason bishop-to-butt doesn't belong in chess is because the behavior is inappropriate for the board game. How is the stalemate rule the same? It creates a functioning and enjoyable game, which is all that you can ask for.
Also, where did you get this heirarchy of rules for the rules of chess? Its obvious, if a rule cuts other rules off its of a higher priority (eg checkmate cuts off the you must move rule) I'm curious because I've never come across it before. Did you get if off of wikipedia? FIDE? Or did you just make it up? Please enlighten me. Again, I dont need authorities to tell me these things, I like to work them out for myself.
You're actually missing the point I made with the basketball analogy, which is that the logic behind any particular rule is irrelevant (1 paragraph ago you were telling me why bishop to but doesnt "belong" and how its "not appropriate"..... I think now you understand why I made up that rule) to whether it's good or not. Others have echoed this in recent posts and I've elaborated a bit on this in my own post, so I won't go any further into it here.
Well, bishop-to-butt is inappropriate because anal penetration is completely out of place in a game of chess. Stalemate is nothing like that. It just resolves the dilema of determining the outcome when the player to move does not have any legal moves. There's no progress to be made in the game otherwise. It's a necessary rule that is hardly inappropriate, and again, I fail to see how you're connecting the two. Also, would you consider the dribble rule to be bad as well? The logic behind the rule is pretty non existent. So as far as you're concerned, it's a bad rule, right?
It's great that you can work things out on your own without the aid of authorities, but you cannot work out on your own how chess should be played or how it was intended to be played. You can only judge these things from the rules in place, or at the very least from a concensus of the chess community. You go around dictating how the game ought to be from Ideas that you come up with on your own, which is the wrong way of doing things for obvious reasons. Heirarchy of rules? There is no such thing. At the very least, not in the way that you've described it.
Again, the rules of chess doesn't need to follow your train of logic.
Well, bishop-to-butt is inappropriate because anal penetration is completely out of place in a game of chess. Stalemate is nothing like that. Turning the rule "you must move and not pass your move", on its head and creating an exception rule precicely at the point you should be punished for not moving is appropriate? (especially when the clock rule would already resolve the outcome)..? It just resolves the dilema of determining the outcome when the player to move does not have any legal moves (clock rule already resolves it). There's no progress to be made in the game otherwise. It's a necessary rule that is hardly inappropriate, and again, I fail to see how you're connecting the two. Also, would you consider the dribble rule to be bad as well? The logic behind the rule is pretty non existent. So as far as you're concerned, it's a bad rule, right?
No, its fine.. however, this would be bad
1. You have to dribble while moving
2. "stalemate" = 1/2 = if you cant dribble for some reason but keeping moving... the opponents *don't* get the ball, but you goto the middle of the court and the referee throws it in the air for the jump/catch thing or whatever it is they do in the beginning to determine who gets possession.
2. stalemate = 1-0 = opponents get the ball
It's great that you can work things out on your own without the aid of authorities, but you cannot work out on your own how chess should be played or how it was intended to be played. No, but once I have the rules I can analyse and think about them. You can only judge these things from the rules in place, or at the very least from a concensus of the chess community. You go around dictating how the game ought to be from Ideas that you come up with on your own, which is the wrong way of doing things (you do realise this is exactly how every game is created right......?) for obvious reasons. Heirarchy of rules? There is no such thing. At the very least, not in the way that you've described it.
haha come on...
If there is no hierarchy of rules I can castle after checkmate. Think about it....
Some rules are above other rules in priority. IE when you make a move the rules are checked like this....
IF clock hasnt run out THEN move to other rules [IF it has then xyz]
IF its not checkmate/stalemate THEN move to other rules [IF it has then xyz]
etc
etc
Again, the rules of chess doesn't need to follow your train of logic.
I think Ive given you way to much attention, Im going to ignore your posts until you start thinking a little before you post again.
Awww Ken's Mom..he is going to IGNORE you! The most important person in the WORLD (trying not to laugh -- NO I'm not 
!) is going to IGNORE you. He's just NOT going to take it any more and is going home to POUT. I remember LOTS of two-year-olds who employed that critical-thinking tactic. What a REBEL..what an independent thinker! WHAT a BABY!
Awww Ken's Mom..he is going to IGNORE you! The most important person in the WORLD (trying not to laugh -- NO I'm not !) is going to IGNORE you. He's just NOT going to take it any more and is going home to POUT. I remember LOTS of two-year-olds who employed that critical-thinking tactic. What a REBEL..what an independent thinker! WHAT a BABY!
Yes, I'm a bit disappointed that he's resorted to giving this sort of response, but not completely surprised.
Awww Ken's Mom..he is going to IGNORE you! The most important person in the WORLD (trying not to laugh -- NO I'm not !) is going to IGNORE you. He's just NOT going to take it any more and is going home to POUT. I remember LOTS of two-year-olds who employed that critical-thinking tactic. What a REBEL..what an independent thinker! WHAT a BABY!
2 year olds use it because it works on moms... kensMOM is a ........
Can stalemater ever connect 2 points?
by the way I noticed you never take issue with my arguements, only what names Im calling people and that Im above everyone (which I totally am here).
Awww Ken's Mom..he is going to IGNORE you! The most important person in the WORLD (trying not to laugh -- NO I'm not !) is going to IGNORE you. He's just NOT going to take it any more and is going home to POUT. I remember LOTS of two-year-olds who employed that critical-thinking tactic. What a REBEL..what an independent thinker! WHAT a BABY!
2 year olds use it because it works on moms... kensMOM is a ........
Can stalemater ever connect 2 points?
by the way I noticed you never take issue with my arguements, only what names Im calling people and that Im above everyone (which I totally am here).
Go on please. Nobody is listening. You have the full attention of your target audience.
Come on Monster, don't leave me hanging. Give a reply to post 1180. It took a while to write up that wall of text.
"The bishop to ass move on move 29" is my way of showing you that any exception rule can be "technically logically consistent with the ruleset" but it is a terrible move NONE THE LESS.... stalemate is the same. What the bishop to ass rule is meant to show, that you cant argue the rule is good, JUST because its "logically consistent"
Your other point....
Actually...there is a hierarchy of rules.. eg
Checkmate/stalemate trumps them all,
If your time runs out that will also cut off the rest of the rules
etc
the rules are like a computer program
if -> then
if -> then
if -> then
there is a hierarchy
Anyway the other stuff Ive addressed before.. and the stalemate rule does turn the [you must move] and the [your turn, clock runs out, you lose] rules on their heads.