And on the way, let's stop in the closest bar for a stiff drink. Believe me, it will be good for you :-)
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
TheGrobe wrote:
It was intended to highlight your very selective and slanted lens into a compare and contrast of the rules. (its probably selective because I only have a problem with one of the rules, why would I bring up the 64 squares if Im happy with them and they arent relevent to the topic) You keep omiting the overarching objective of chess (because it's convenient to your argument): The goal of the game is to checkmate your opponent. (I keep omitting it because under my rules this would stay pretty similar: capture the king...) Its a common feature, and I dont have a problem with it
On the other hand, a more relevant question would be, (which is kinda weird because this is a thread *debating stalemate rule*) why do you leave out that stalemate contradicts the *dont pass your move* and the *clock rule* ? That would be a more *relevant* thing to bring up, given the context.
This means that you must simultaneously constrain and attack the King. Only one of the two is insufficient.
And before you launch into your "You're just arguing that the rules are the rule" nonsense, pause for a moment, and reflect on the fact that you're simply arguing that the rules should be different. Create a variant already.
zborg wrote:
Attention All Chessnuts:
Please, everyone just shift your dicussion into @Blakes thread on "Dynamic Scoring," and we would (finally) be done with this ridiculous thread.
And @Blake would be in heaven.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/dynamic-scoring
Just a thought.
I dont care where the debate takes place... Im just curious what youve got against me ? Everytime someone leaves a comment against me or my idea you personally thank them for their post.. and then leave some juvenille comment about my medication... what is up with that ?
You follow me on other threads and make comments there too.. whats ups buddy?
I dont think I ever even deigned to insult you .... oh wait... thats not it is it ?
hehehe
Saturday Night (Troll) Fever. That movie has seen better days.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
On the other hand, a more relevant question would be, (which is kinda weird because this is a thread *debating stalemate rule*) why do you leave out that stalemate contradicts the *dont pass your move* and the *clock rule* ? That would be a more *relevant* thing to bring up, given the context.
On the other hand, a more relevant question would be, (which is kinda weird because this is a thread *debating stalemate rule*) why do you leave out that stalemate contradicts the *dont pass your move* and the *clock rule* ? That would be a more *relevant* thing to bring up, given the context.
Stalemate doesn't contradict the "don't pass your move" rule because the game is over as soon as the conditions for stalemate are met -- there is no move to pass.
Abolishing stalemate, however, does contradict the core objective of the game of chess, which is to checkmate your opponent.
All things I know you don't need explained to you, but of which you are being willfully ignorant.
TheGrobe wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
On the other hand, a more relevant question would be, (which is kinda weird because this is a thread *debating stalemate rule*) why do you leave out that stalemate contradicts the *dont pass your move* and the *clock rule* ? That would be a more *relevant* thing to bring up, given the context.
On the other hand, a more relevant question would be, (which is kinda weird because this is a thread *debating stalemate rule*) why do you leave out that stalemate contradicts the *dont pass your move* and the *clock rule* ? That would be a more *relevant* thing to bring up, given the context.
Stalemate doesn't contradict the "don't pass your move" rule because the game is over as soon as the conditions for stalemate are met -- there is no move to pass.
Abolishing stalemate, however, does contradict the core objective of the game of chess, which is to checkmate your opponent.
All things I know you don't need explained to you, but of which you are being willfully ignorant.
Fide rule 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 [obviously the stalemate rule is "passing the move" - ie "player to move" [fides words] does not and the game is over -- my comment],
provided that the move producing the stalemate position was legal.
1. you must move and not pass your turn
2. if its your turn and you dont move, your clock runs out, you lose
and/or 3. stalemate = 1-0 = you violate 1, you lose
(no contradiction)
the current rules:
3. oh hi... listen... we know we said youve goto move and not pass, thats the heart of chess, the engine, but you know what, weve had a change of heart...we were a little harsh, so... heres what we're gonna do.. where were we?.. oh right you were about to move as per rule 1 but you cant move! Ok according to any other sport or game you should be punished now for violating a core rule... but now we're gonna go all socialist... we're just going to terminate the game right here and give everyone 1/2! yeeeeah.. thats right you heard me.. right at the moment your about to violate the rule, the moment you should be punished, we'll create an exception rule and tack it on to terminate the game so you dont have to violate it. What? The clock rule... i forgot all about that... hmm, it is true, its your turn and the clock would just run out... damn... wait a minute... we've broken one rule we'll just over ride that one too.. ya.. dat makes senz.. so u haz to move unless you cant movez in which case you dont have to move n every one getz 1/2.. ya that workz puuuuurrrrrfek
Your mindless prose flow smoothly using those triple dot connectors.
You are splitting hairs. It's clear that the intent is to describe the conditions for stalemate, not to indicate any kind of sequencing. What I've said and what FIDE rule 5.2.a says are the same thing.
zborg wrote:
Your mindless prose flow... smoothly... using those triple... dot... connectors.
Fixed.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
the current rules:
3. oh hi... listen... we know we said youve goto move and not pass, thats the heart of chess, the engine, but you know what, weve had a change of heart...we were a little harsh, so... heres what we're gonna do.. where were we?.. oh right you were about to move as per rule 1 but you cant move! Ok according to any other sport or game you should be punished now for violating a core rule... but now we're gonna go all socialist... we're just going to terminate the game right here and give everyone 1/2! yeeeeah.. thats right you heard me.. right at the moment your about to violate the rule, the moment you should be punished, we'll create an exception rule and tack it on to terminate the game so you dont have to violate it. What? The clock rule... i forgot all about that... hmm, it is true, its your turn and the clock would just run out... damn... wait a minute... we've broken one rule we'll just over ride that one too.. ya.. dat makes senz.. so u haz to move unless you cant movez in which case you dont have to move n every one getz 1/2.. ya that workz puuuuurrrrrfek
Awesome.
This thread holds back the Communist hordes!
zborg wrote:
Your mindless prose flow smoothly using those triple dot connectors.
They..... indicate pauses and timing... have you... reeeaaad ... any literature at all.. ?
Probably a stupid question.... to ask.
Monster, you are not nice to the people that outlasted these 1455 posts of considerable length and little consequence. If they would not have read any litterature before, then they would not have stuck with you for so long. Any chessplayer can explain you the rules: mate, within the time, no hitting and no biting. Lets find some other entertainment, before you really insult somebody badly.
TheGrobe wrote:
You are splitting hairs. It's clear that the intent is to describe the conditions for stalemate, not to indicate any kind of sequencing. What I've said and what FIDE rule 5.2.a says are the same thing.
hehehe... I love.. this guy .... this little grobe-ster
Accuses me of cherry picking, the munchkin.
Then picks out the part of my arguement he thinks is "hair splitting" addresses that, and ignores the massive elephant in the room of the 2nd half which is the main point Im making.
This pattern seems to be a little technique of yours, answer some tiny point (incorrectly), ignore the main points, and then when you get called out on your mistakes, ignore that too and change the subject.
This thread splits hairs with its mind.
TheGrobe wrote:
You are splitting hairs. It's clear that the intent is to describe the conditions for stalemate, not to indicate any kind of sequencing. What I've said and what FIDE rule 5.2.a says are the same thing.
To create an exception rule because a player is about to *violate 2 existing core rules* and then *terminate the game so those violations dont happen* and *split the points equally*, if thats not 4 contradictions.... of biblical proportions....... I dont know what is.
Zborg (the bold is for emphasis)
theoreticalboy wrote:
This thread splits hairs with its mind.
Mind? Blown!
You're learning, at least how to bold. Keep working on the 3 dots.
This thread is the rebirth of @FemaleNeeded.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
You are splitting hairs. It's clear that the intent is to describe the conditions for stalemate, not to indicate any kind of sequencing. What I've said and what FIDE rule 5.2.a says are the same thing.
To create an exception rule because a player is about to *violate 2 existing core rules* and then *terminate the game so those violations dont happen* and *split the points equally*, if thats not 4 contradictions.... of biblical proportions....... I dont know what is.
Zborg (the bold is for emphasis)
Your logic is impeccable. You're assessment of what are core rules and what are exceptions is entirely arbitrary monster. Your implication that there's no precedent for splitting the points equally is equally ridiculous (unless you're suggesting that all draws be done away with).
If I were to choose one core rule, however, it's that the objective of the game is to checkmate your opponent. Stalemate is not checkmate, so it's ludicrous to suggest that it should also be considered a win (Yeah... close enough. Good job). If you want "close" to count, go play horseshoes.
Attention All Chessnuts:
Please, everyone just shift your dicussion into @Blakes thread on "Dynamic Scoring," and we would (finally) be done with this ridiculous thread.
And @Blake would be in heaven.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/dynamic-scoring
Just a thought.