Monster_with_no_Name, admit it - you lost this battle. From what I see here you have very few supporters. If you make a poll on this site it will be far less than 10%. And that's quite representative. If you ask among GMs and IMs I will be really surprised if you find more than 0.1%. So just answering your original question - stalemate rule will NEVER be abolished. We are still living in democracy, thank God...
Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!
Sort:
DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
uri65 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name, admit it - you lost this battle. From what I see here you have very few supporters. If you make a poll on this site it will be far less than 10%. And that's quite representative. If you ask among GMs and IMs I will be really surprised if you find more than 0.1%. So just answering your original question - stalemate rule will NEVER be abolished. We are still living in democracy, thank God...
I dont decide whether im right or wrong by how many people follow my idea.... this is how such absurd things as religion start.
Science is also not democratic... before galileo all scientists thought the world was flat.
Just because there is a concensus between fools, that doesnt make it logical.
I simply cannot believe how you guys cannot or will not fathom the very simple point im trying to make ... that if i have your king surrounded with an all out attack, its not logical for that to be a draw, where you have just suicded all your army.
Why am I a troll ? Im making arguments....
people who dont read the previous posts and type stupid comments like "dont feed the troll" these ppl are the trolls
Aug 21, 2011
0
#285
Monster_with_no_Name will never admit that he has lost the battle because he is a fanatic, and like all true fanatics he will go to his grave believing in the righteousness of his cause. What he should do is try to find a group of like minded fanatics and then they can play the game with HIS rules and wear hats with propellers on their heads or dressed in tutus or whatever else turns them on and pretend that they are playing the game of chess. Then the rest of us can get on with our lives and argue about something else equally ridiculous.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
I simply cannot believe how you guys cannot or will not fathom the very simple point im trying to make ... that if i have your king surrounded with an all out attack, its not logical for that to be a draw, where you have just suicded all your army.
Why am I a troll ? Im making arguments....
You're making the wrong arguments. Chess isn't a war simulation, it doesn't matter how much like war it is or how logical it is.
Chess is a game. A games that is loved all over the world because of its complexity and strategical deepness and general interestingness.
You should argue about how removing stalemate would make it a better game -- perhaps you could explain how it would make the game more fun, or more beautiful as a game.
We don't care how logical the rules are or how much or little like war it is. We like the current game.
Perhaps we cpould look at my recent game with friend Robert Holding and argue that it looks like an equal drawn game... ok I know I expose myself to ridicule so don't bother funning me !! (Editd.)
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
uri65 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name, admit it - you lost this battle. From what I see here you have very few supporters. If you make a poll on this site it will be far less than 10%. And that's quite representative. If you ask among GMs and IMs I will be really surprised if you find more than 0.1%. So just answering your original question - stalemate rule will NEVER be abolished. We are still living in democracy, thank God...
I dont decide whether im right or wrong by how many people follow my idea.... this is how such absurd things as religion start.
Science is also not democratic... before galileo all scientists thought the world was flat.
I am not saying that you are right or wrong. There is no right or wrong here - existing rules are fully consistent, your rules are fully consistent too. So again - it's question of personal taste only. I am just saying that you failed to convince anybody except for very few players here.
uri65 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
uri65 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name, admit it - you lost this battle. From what I see here you have very few supporters. If you make a poll on this site it will be far less than 10%. And that's quite representative. If you ask among GMs and IMs I will be really surprised if you find more than 0.1%. So just answering your original question - stalemate rule will NEVER be abolished. We are still living in democracy, thank God...
I dont decide whether im right or wrong by how many people follow my idea.... this is how such absurd things as religion start.
Science is also not democratic... before galileo all scientists thought the world was flat.
I am not saying that you are right or wrong. There is no right or wrong here - existing rules are fully consistent, your rules are fully consistent too. So again - it's question of personal taste only. I am just saying that you failed to convince anybody except for very few players here.
yes on that point you are right...
i think ppl feel "invested" in what they've learnt and dont want to lose it, so they dont even want to question it.
That.... and for 20years or so they have been habituated to it... once its that ingrained many people cant see "outside of that"
Aug 21, 2011
0
#290
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
pauix wrote:
Because it adds complexity to the game, and it allows people to find good combinations when they're in lost positions:
complexity for the sake of complexity is stupid... chess is already complex, we dont need to add these stupid rules to bail people out of lost positions.
there is elegant complexity where rules which are harmonious and build on each other, and then there are ugly forced complexity like that turd of a movie inception
Chess is a thinking game. Complexity for the sake of complexity is good as it allows people to show that they can play well. If the side that's down can play smartly and obtain a stalemate, then all power to them. Are you really arguing that chess needs to be dumbed down? It seems to me that you just want to win more easily.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Just because there is a concensus between fools, that doesnt make it logical.
Just because there is a concensus between fools, that doesnt make it logical.
I simply cannot believe how you guys cannot or will not fathom the very simple point im trying to make ... that if i have your king surrounded with an all out attack, its not logical for that to be a draw, where you have just suicded all your army.
Why am I a troll ? Im making arguments....
people who dont read the previous posts and type stupid comments like "dont feed the troll" these ppl are the trolls
And yet again, you call us fools and say that we post stupid comments. Calling everyone that disagrees with you a fool or simple-minded is not "making arguments", unless you have yet to graduate from high school. Dear sir, how exactly does this contribute to your vaunted logical discussion?
If you have someone's king surrounded with an all out attack and a material advantage and you get stalemated, the question to ask is not whether your opponent deserves a draw. The question you should be asking is: Do I deserve a win? And the answer is no.
I've read the previous posts.
The reason why I deem you a troll is beacuse you're arguing against the multitudes of people, and after about 50 people give you reasons why stalemate is beneficial, you are still so stubborn enough to go on ranting. It's ok if you don't believe them, just don't come back and repeat the same point over and over again trying to annoy people.
Aug 21, 2011
0
#292
Ringwraith2021 wrote:
I've read the previous posts.
The reason why I deem you a troll is beacuse you're arguing against the multitudes of people, and after about 50 people give you reasons why stalemate is beneficial, you are still so stubborn enough to go on ranting. It's ok if you don't believe them, just don't come back and repeat the same point over and over again trying to annoy people.
Another reason would be that he needs to back up half of his "arguments" with insults.
The very simple reason I think stalemate needs to be retained is because it makes the endgame far more complex. And stalemate is a draw because stalemate is not checkmate. It's just as simple as that. It doesn't matter which side has a material advantage, if one side can't legally move and isn't in checkmate, then the game is over and it's a draw. The problem Monster seems to be having is thinking that you have to move in a stalemate, but not understanding that the game is over. Just like with checkmate, the king doesn't have to be captured, the game is just over.
Stalemate adding an extra complexity to the game makes it far more interesting in my opinion.
I think people who doesn't agree with stalemate rules (chess rules) can create a new game. I challenge you to make something better than chess.
Reb wrote:
This is a very silly idea imo as it would change chess too much. K+p v K endings that are book draws ( due to stalemate ) would change and be lost now for the stalemated side. It would also be possible for the side with the pawn to actually lose if they are stalemated which would violate another rule of chess : you cannot win if no legal series of moves can lead to checkmate.
If you could change any one rule in chess which would it be? I would change the stalemate rule so that the person who's turn it is to move loses if they cannot make a legal move, like in checkers/draughts. You ?
The internet never forgets
heinzie wrote:
Reb wrote:
This is a very silly idea imo as it would change chess too much. K+p v K endings that are book draws ( due to stalemate ) would change and be lost now for the stalemated side. It would also be possible for the side with the pawn to actually lose if they are stalemated which would violate another rule of chess : you cannot win if no legal series of moves can lead to checkmate.
If you could change any one rule in chess which would it be? I would change the stalemate rule so that the person who's turn it is to move loses if they cannot make a legal move, like in checkers/draughts. You ?
The internet never forgets
LOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LWALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLll
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I want to change the rules of Spanish Opening. When I put my bishop on b5, I don't like to remove it because the black plays a6. I propose to remove the a6-square of the chess board or forbidden the black side to play axb5 until 50 moves.
phinneas wrote:
I want to change the rules of Spanish Opening. When I put my bishop on b5, I don't like to remove it because the black plays a6. I propose to remove the a6-square of the chess board or forbidden the black side to play axb5 until 50 moves.
yes that analogy makes perfect sense..... you stupid goose.
Every one of your kind has been making similar stupid annalogies... look back in the thread. You have no idea what we're talking about here. Go make your kindergarten analogies somewhere else.
Keep stalemate if your opponent is up material and they stale mate you thats there fault you should be able to check mate when you are up material and take your time to make sure it isnt stalemate and i fyour in time preassure keep checking your opponents king