Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!
Sort:
trysts
Aug 24, 2011
0
#441
To be fair to the woman in #512 (that is a woman, right?), she did at least get the apostrophe placement correct. Though, maybe that's just a smudge from the burger she obviously ate when creating the sign.
Aug 24, 2011
0
#447
theoreticalboy wrote:
To be fair to the woman in #512 (that is a woman, right?), she did at least get the apostrophe placement correct. Though, maybe that's just a smudge from the burger she obviously ate when creating the sign.
It's hard to ask for more than that. But, what exactly is this thread about, TB? I know the OP requested pictures, but no "thanks" at all?
I think he has very stringent aesthetic standards, and as such he will continue to deem us all idiots until we post that one image which will force him to leap from his chair, fall to his knees, and thanks the heavens in teary rapture. So, I guess we all need to just keep on trying.
corrijean wrote:
hehe that proves it !
Monty python -- only people with a mental age of 5 can "appreciate" monty python...
AND an MBA (anyone with one of these is an automatic idiot)
Whaaaa? Some Monty Python is damn near miraculous! Not all of it hits, but the hits are legendary for a reason.
Aug 24, 2011
0
#453
It is ok to create and play chess variants, but any attempt to change basic rules of classic chess would lead to unwanted split in chess world.
There was discussion whether ICCF is entitled to abolish the 50-move draw rule and use Nalimov's outcome instead. The majority consensus has been 'no'. However the variant with this rule abolished is played on FICGS chess server.
If FIDE imposed any change in basic rules, immediately would appear another chess body maintaining continuity of old rules.
theoreticalboy wrote:
Whaaaa? Some Monty Python is damn near miraculous! Not all of it hits, but the hits are legendary for a reason.
yes because 90% of the plebs of the world are at mental age 5!
Send a link to the monty python sketch you think is funny....
Nah, you're Hungarian, you probably have misery ingrained in you from years of reading Krasznahorkai. You'll never find anything funny again after that shit.
The stalemate combinations are the beauty of chess.
theoreticalboy wrote:
Nah, you're Hungarian, you probably have misery ingrained in you from years of reading Krasznahorkai. You'll never find anything funny again after that shit.
monty python is not funny
Who finds this funny?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQfGd3G6dg
Aug 25, 2011
0
#458
If you are in a situation where you are about to win because of a better position or simply have more pieces and you still can't win then it is no ones fault but your own if your opponent gets a stalemate.
If you allowed your opponent to get a stalemate then he beat you in tactics. So many times I have heard people complain about this with comments like "I had more pieces, it was only a matter of time before I would have won if not for stalemate". Or, " I had the stronger position and he cheated me with a stalemate". Etc, etc.
If you are in a stronger position or have much more major pieces or even more than one queen and you still can't win, then whose fault is it? Be honest with yourself and you will have to admit it is your own fault. When this has happened to me in the past I always think two things.
1. That was very good of my opponent to keep a cool head under those odds.
2. Giving the position I was in, I should have won this but I failed to stop or even look for a stalemate. I need to analyse this and learn from it.
What I never do is blame a rule for my failure. I new the rule existed before I started the game so I have no excuse.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
OP... would it kill ya to respond to post 499?
if you read thru the WHOLE thread.. you will see we are debating this point...
you make the same arguement 99% of the pro-stalematers do..
"the rule is the rule because its the rule"
but we're debating here WHY its the rule and proposing better ones/.
I AM debating why this rule... I showed you the logic behind it.