To be a little clearer, in your tennis and sumo analogies, you're *not* forcing me to break the rules. You're making it likely, even highly likely, that I will. In stalemate, you are *forcing* me to break the rule because I have *no choice* not to
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
But the player in your analogy has a *choice* of whether or not to break the rule. His destiny is still in his hands. In tennis, you can hit the ball in such a way that it's likely I will hit the ball into the net, but it's not a 100 percent certainty. I could adjust my racquet in such a way that I can avoid hitting the ball into the net. Same with sumo - you may be trying to force me out of the ring, but I still have the ability to prevent it. My destiny is still in my hands.
In stalemate, the stalemated player has no opportunity, no chance, not to break the rule.
Im guessing the chess player in this scenario can only see 1 move ahead?
10 moves ago "destiny was still in his hand"... right ?
The sumo who has been pushed by 300kg man mountain after having lost all balance also has "no opportunity, no chance, not to break the rule."
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
To be a little clearer, in your tennis and sumo analogies, you're *not* forcing me to break the rules. You're making it likely, even highly likely, that I will. In stalemate, you are *forcing* me to break the rule because I have *no choice* not to
a little less posting, more thinking ;)
There you go again, saying the stalemated player has left himself without a legal move. That's the same illogical belief that led you to claim the stalemated player corners and cramps himself - as if his opponent has nothing to do with it!
You're again falsely blaming the stalemated player for creating the stalemate position - when it was his opponent's last move that created the stalemate position.
So you want the king to move into check and be allowed to be captured? You're not only changing more rules of the game, you're changing the nature of the game itself. A player under those rules could win while his king was attacked. It makes no sense
Starting in with the personal insults? Perhaps you don't like seeing the absurdity of your position exposed to the light of day?
You're back to arguing that the stalemated player is responsible for stalemate - a fallacy that was exposed as a fallacy 1,000 posts ago.
It's really no longer worth responding to your increasingly desperate and illogical posts.
And your obnoxious insults just reveal that even you realize your proposition is illogical and absurd.
It's a pity that you simply can't/won't accept responsibility for blowing a win due to your carelessness.
Smart people learn from their mistakes - they don't spend two months in a futile attempt to argue that 2+2=5
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
Ok now its high time to bring out that word again...... idiot
There you go again, saying the stalemated player has left himself without a legal move.
That's the same illogical belief that led you to claim the stalemated player corners and cramps himself - as if his opponent has nothing to do with it!
You're again falsely blaming the stalemated player for creating the stalemate position - when it was his opponent's last move that created the stalemate position.
re·spon·si·ble
[ri-spon-suh-buhl]
adjective
1.
answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management
Rules are defined before the game begins:
Stalemate = 1/2 = you will be accountable for 1/2 a point punishment if you create this position where your opponent cant move. therefore I have 1/2 responsibility for it.
Stalemate = 1-0 = could you please explain why you think I have any responsibility here to ensure you have moves left? And why you think you have 0 responsibility to ensure you have moves left ? (you idiot)
So you want the king to move into check and be allowed to be captured? You're not only changing more rules of the game, you're changing the nature of the game itself. A player under those rules could win while his king was attacked. It makes no sense
I checked out your profile and saw the groups you're a member of , why am I not surprised?
world view -> Magical thinking [check], Responsibility shifting [check]
Your personal insults, to an educated mind, simply reveal your desperation and anger at seeing your argument exposed for the illogical absurdity that it is.
Have a great day/evening. No point in continuing. You've had your questions answered - and points rebutted - for two months. At some point, it simply becomes a waste of time, and that time, for me, has now been reached
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
Your personal insults, to an educated mind an educated mind doesnt believe in things that have no basis or evidence, but only feel terrific, as your profile clearly shows you do, simply reveal your desperation and anger at seeing your argument exposed for the illogical absurdity that it is.
Yes, the other conclusion could be that debating a simple point with retarded intelligences (as 95% are on this thread) that cant or refuses to hold 2 ideas in their tiny brains could also cause frustration.
Have a great day/evening. No point in continuing. You've had your questions answered - and points rebutted - for two months. At some point, it simply becomes a waste of time, and that time, for me, has now been reached
the grobe, don juan , and now pawnpromoter...
lose the debate, pretend you have the high moral ground, exit quickly
You're revealing more of your ignorance - only this time on a different subject. There's PLENTY of evidence for what I believe, but only someone with an open mind would be able to see it, so that, unfortunately, excludes you at this time.
And no, I'm not going to cite the evidence. You can easily find it on your own if you're interested and communicating with you, I've come to learn, is a waste of time and effort because you repeat points that have been rebutted in the apparent belief that saying something 1,000 times will make it true.
It's pretty funny how Monster resorts to posting irrelevant information from your profile when he runs out of things to post. Kinda pathetic.
Let Monster have his self-proclaimed "victory" over an internet debate if that would stop him from posting or creating anymore stalemate threads for a while. Regardless of how this thread ends, the rules of chess would remain the same and Monster will have to face the fact that he will need to either tolerate stalemates as draws or pick up another game.
But at least he got an audience to hear him rant.
Kens_Mom wrote:
It's pretty funny how Monster resorts to posting irrelevant information from your profile when he runs out of things to post. Kinda pathetic.
Actually wishful thinking, ignoring evidence, not being a critical thinker , deferring to an authority, stubbornly sticking to existing customs /rules when they dont make sense, obeying rules unquestioningly are all highly relevent. The guy cant hold the 2 ideas in his head that depending on which ruleset we use the players accountability/responsibility changes. He almost! had it, in one of his recent posts there was a glimmer of a small spark, that it was dawning on him what Im saying.... then for some reason his brain snapped shut and went back to "current rules are the current rules, its all your fault you should learn from your mistakes..... homily continued..."
Let Monster have his self-proclaimed "victory" over an internet debate if that would stop him from posting or creating anymore stalemate threads for a while. Regardless of how this thread ends, the rules of chess would remain the same and Monster will have to face the fact that he will need to either tolerate stalemates as draws or pick up another game.
But at least he got an audience to hear him rant.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
DonJuan_DeMarco wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
DonJuan_DeMarco wrote:
Monsters proposal is a monstrosity!
Did you bother to consider my complete post which was in response to yours ???
you dudes are trying to isolate a subset and make them an exception to the overall set.
what ??
"if i had read the posts"!!!! blah blah blah ... eat your honey
i'll put that into plain english for you later, darling.
Subset of what?
Are you related to the grobe by any chance?
Trying to sound clever and sophisticated using really vague and obfuscated terms and then when I call your bull$hit you run like a rabbit just like the grobe
am i related to another member ?
i try to sound clever and sophisticated ?
i use vague and obfuscated terms ?
you say i write bull$hit ?
i run like a rabbit ?
as i said sweetheart, i'll explain for you later.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Kens_Mom wrote:
It's pretty funny how Monster resorts to posting irrelevant information from your profile when he runs out of things to post. Kinda pathetic.
Actually wishful thinking, ignoring evidence, not being a critical thinker , deferring to an authority, stubbornly sticking to existing customs /rules when they dont make sense, obeying rules unquestioningly are all highly relevent. The guy cant hold the 2 ideas in his head that depending on which ruleset we use the players accountability/responsibility changes. He almost! had it, in one of his recent posts there was a glimmer of a small spark, that it was dawning on him what Im saying.... then for some reason his brain snapped shut and went back to "current rules are the current rules, its all your fault you should learn from your mistakes..... homily continued..."
Let Monster have his self-proclaimed "victory" over an internet debate if that would stop him from posting or creating anymore stalemate threads for a while. Regardless of how this thread ends, the rules of chess would remain the same and Monster will have to face the fact that he will need to either tolerate stalemates as draws or pick up another game.
But at least he got an audience to hear him rant.
I rest my case. Like I said eariler, you've somehow convinced yourself that the reason people have disagreed with you is that they did not understand your argument. You need to understand that the reason people have disagreed with you is because they understood your argument with which they found themselves at odds with.
I'll try to keep my participation in this thread to a minimum from this point forth because, like PawnPromoter, I no longer feel the obligation or compulsion to posting in a thread that I know would make no progress, especially now that it's been moved to Off-Topics.
Have fun playing chess :)
I used to have "move moves than a clock," but then my knees wore out.
Guess I was "stale-mated." Sounds like sex-ercise with an old loaf of bread.
Is that what @Monster does in this thread?
Oh, so someone revived this thread? I thought it was already clear that it is a trolling thread since the post #1...
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
zborg wrote:
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.
The same thing that draws me to this thread, is the same thing which pushes me away... people fasinate me, but not in a good way.
What Im confirming from this thread, something Ive known a long time ago, is how terrible the average persons logic is.. How their logic is based on what they want to believe and rationalising to that... instead of establishing what they ought to think thru analysing the thing away from the heat of the moment.
Look at what this guy wrote:
"He believes that 13,000 view (somehow) makes him right."
[Actually it was 33, 000 (this also happens alarmingly often, simplest of mistakes)]
But my main point is ... when I posted those stats it was to disprove the claim someone made that "nobody is listening" not that "Im right because people are viewing".
The guy fails to make this simplest of connections. But he is ULTRA confident his reasoning is crystal clear on stalemate.
The girl couple of posts ago claims "there is no stalemate rule" because she cant connect 2 items and deduce a very simple piece of reasoning...
Not to mention that she only reads the first 2 rules and ignores the rest... once the conclusion [which was wrong] she wanted was reached, she stopped searching/thinking.
Then she posts about how stalemate can be deduced from 1.2+1.3 (which is indeed the case).. and pretends she was right all along [ignoring the fact she said stalemate doesnt exist as a rule] (in other words she doesnt care about stalemate at all (if she did she would concede, and say you were right... ie take responsibility [the thing I mentioned women are not good with, and she flared up]), she is only here to win an arguement and boost her ego).
For me this thread has been about stalemate, but also about people.. their motivations, thinking processes, etc.. its interesting, but also depressing at the same time.
Oh, the irony!
Monster will never see the truth because he's invested so much time and effort into this thread that his automatic, knee-jerk reaction to a contrary opinion is to throw around insults and desperately repeat his tired refrain that people don't understand his proposal.
Monster's like a boxer who, after being knocked out in the first round, struggles to his feet after everyone's left the arena to declare himself the winner. Funny and sad at the same time.
The result doesn't define the responsibility. It does. if stalemate= 1/2 then I shoulder 1/2 the responsibility. If stalemate = 1-0, I have no responsibility to ensure you have moves left, because Im not punished, infact Im rewarded for it (ie 0 responsibility for ensuring you have moves left). On the other hand you are serverly punished (a full point) for not haveing moves left .... who can you blame? yourself, you knew that the rule was stalemate = 1-0 (ie your responsibility) I've said over and over that the player who delivers stalemate is *responsible* for it because he left his opponent without a legal move. Stalemate = 1-0 your responsible because you havent left yourself with a legal move. I *have never* said that the player who delivers stalemate is responsible for it because he loses half a point.
If you want to truly abolish stalemate, then you have to permit the king to move into check (and be captured next move.) Yes, 20 steps ahead of you, post #16 That is much more of a radical change than you think and would make chess much less elegant than it is today. no.
Is this where we're in confusion? Are you advocating that the king be permitted to move into check and for the king to be captured? post #16, now youre catching on
Sorry if you've been saying this all along, but my enthusiasm for going through this thread in its entirety isn't there.. ok but do check out post #16