Go on please. Nobody is listening. You have the full attention of your target audience.
Dont you get tired of being wrong all the time ?
Or do you get used to it after a while ? Ive always been wondering about that... how do you sheeple do it ?? How do you cope with it?
| Stalemate needs to be abolished... | views: 33072 | posts: 1267 | 07/05/2012 |
And the monster eats it up...
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.
Ok that's interesting: you are not against exceptions. So what makes stalemate different? Why is it a bad exception?
By the way stalemate=win rule will still be an exception, right? So for you just changing the game result from draw to win will turn it into good exception? Why?
Because he drew a blitz game due to a stalemate two months ago because of some inaccurate play and then started this thread
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)..?
You need to stop repeating this same arguement over and over again. The reason you think that the stalemated player should be punished is because you feel that the logic behind it is flawed or inappropriate. I've already made my case that logic is irrelevant to the value of a particular rule.
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).
Again, read post 1050. If you really care about how the game "should" be played, then integrating the clock to stalemate is wrong.
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
What? My comparison between the dribble rule and the stalemate rule is something much more general, which is that, like stalemate, the dribble rule is a handicap to the side with the initiative for no other reason than "it's just how the game works." How can you complain that stalemate is illogal if you're completely fine with how dribbling works in basketball?
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.
I actually don't know what you're saying here. You can go to the FIDE website to access the rules of chess.
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......?)
Yes, except in this case you are trying to change an existing game, not create one. Now, if you were creating your own variant, then you'd have the authority to determine how the game ought to be played. You should try it.
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....
Because the rules clearly state that you cannot castle when in check. That is just an exception to the rule, and does not indicate any sort of heirarchy. Using your logic, I can just as well say that the stalemate rule is at a greater position in the heirarchy than the "you must move during your turn" rule because it prevents you from doing just that. Of course, this isn't true.
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
That's not a heirarchy. That's just the order of operations to determine the state of a game.
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.
Okie dokie. I can't really stop you from ignoring me if you're so determined to do so. This is exactly what TheGrobe meant when he called you out on cherry-picking the posts that you respond to.
TheBrucie94 wrote:
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.
Ok that's interesting: you are not against exceptions. So what makes stalemate different? Why is it a bad exception?
By the way stalemate=win rule will still be an exception, right? So for you just changing the game result from draw to win will turn it into good exception? Why?
Because he drew a blitz game due to a stalemate two months ago because of some inaccurate play and then started this thread
Is that a hat or a pancake?
62 pages about abolishing the stalemate rule!! 
STALEMATE IS NOT A RULE
STALEMATE IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULES
Stalemate is a game-terminating condition resulting from application of the following rules written on FIDE's site
| 1.2 |
The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game. |
| 1.3 |
If the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate, the game is drawn. |
Is that a hat or a pancake?
Either a pancake or just another hare on his head
Lasker (who proposed dynamic scoring) wanted to make a stalemate a .8 win. Emmanuel Lasker, in My Match with Capablanca, as quoted in 200 Open
Games by David Bronstein, wrote:
"We can get closer to this by using the method that I published four
years ago: checkmate would give 10 points, stalemate 8, an exposed
king 6, a draw 5, having one's king exposed 4, being stalemated 2,
being checkmated 0."
I am not sure what consitutes an exposed king.
62 pages about abolishing the stalemate rule!!
STALEMATE IS NOT A RULE
STALEMATE IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULES
Stalemate is a game-terminating condition resulting from application of the following rules written on FIDE's site
1.2The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.
1.3If the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate, the game is drawn.
|
5.2 |
a. |
The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was legal. |
yes, the rules state the game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move, as per rule 1.2
the rule in 5.2a is the first sentence. the rest is a description.
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.
regardless of the validity of stalemate, I do not agree with this notion. sometimes the consensus is wholly inaccurate and wrong.
This is true. Chess is not a democracy, and resolving matters such as this with only the consensus is not ideal. I threw the consensus thing out there to point out that the community as a whole is more qualified determine how the game should and should not be played than Monster alone. Luckily, we don't really have to come down to that because the rules in place are not ambiguous in their intent.
yes, the rules state the game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move, as per rule 1.2
the rule is the first sentence. the rest is a description.
its actually 1.3 not 1.2, mistake after mistake... does it ever occur to you , you might be mistaken about our little disagreement ?
(I hope you dont work at a bank or hospital.)
5.2.a is an explicit clarification for people, who not being able to read between the lines, might declare stalemate "not to be a rule"
We will soon need an Excel Spreadsheet to keep track of all these subsidiary conjectures and syllogisms. This is getting seriously obtuse.
Bertrand Russell please come back from your grave.
@Monster is calling for you. Pleading for your return.
He believes that 13,000 view (somehow) makes him right. But only your return to life will satisfy him, and calm him.
We will soon need an Excel Spreadsheet to keep track of all these subsidiary conjectures and syllogisms. This is getting seriously obtuse.
Bertrand Russell please come back from your grave.
@Monster is calling for you. Pleading for your return.
He believes that 13,000 view (somehow) makes him right. But only your return to life will satisfy him, and calm him.
Bertrand Russell may have nailed it -- "..Shall we instead choose death?"
yes, the rules state the game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move, as per rule 1.2
the rule is the first sentence. the rest is a description.
its actually 1.3 not 1.2, mistake after mistake... does it ever occur to you , you might be mistaken about our little disagreement ?
(I hope you dont work at a bank or hospital.)
5.2.a is an explicit clarification for people, who not being able to read between the lines, might declare stalemate "not to be a rule"
what disagreement do you and i have ?
i totally agree that stalemate should be abolished .... for all of your individual games.
when you combine 1.2 and 1.3 you have the consequence described in 5.2
it's stated for clarity....
the actual rules are .... the King does not move into check and the game is drawn if neither side can deliver checkmate.
either one of those rules must be abolished to appease you or an exception created.
Bertrand Russell please come back from your grave.
Bertrand Russell was also a chess player... no monster, I must say, but he did push some pawns in his time. I even have photographic proof.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
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.
Ok that's interesting: you are not against exceptions. So what makes stalemate different? Why is it a bad exception?
By the way stalemate=win rule will still be an exception, right? So for you just changing the game result from draw to win will turn it into good exception? Why?