Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!
Sort:
ilikeflags
Aug 28, 2011
0
#581
yes (and you left a comma out there)
Don't you have more important things to do other than harass me 24/7?
ilikeflags wrote:
yes
"Yes" is not an answer. I asked WHY I am an idiot.
Aug 28, 2011
0
#584
I like the stalemate rule; it's part of chess. I also play Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) and in this game if a player has no legal moves left he loses. I also like this rule; it's part of Chinese Chess.
I really don't think games that have been around for centuries and stood the test of time need to be tinkered with.
ilikeflags wrote:
yes (and you left a comma out there)
And you have left a ton of capital letters out.
TheGrobe wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
claiming that existing rules are contradictory
Well they are...
rule 1)you *must move* under *all* circumstances... OR resign OR let your clock run out.
rule 2)if you find you have been outplayed and cant even make a move... ok no worries its a draw.
we should apply 1) to stalemate, not make silly addendums like 2)
It is illogical and contradictory when:
if, to a situation, you can apply an existing simple rule (ie rule 1 above), you dont apply it, AND go ahead and create a new rule which is in direct contrast to the first one!
Can you tell me why we cant apply the already established rule 1) to stalemate?
Why do we need to invent new contrary rules to rule 1, when rule 1 can be perfectlyl applied?
You are confusing contradictions with exceptions.
hehehe
exceptions to rules are PRECISELY exceptions BECAUSE they contradict the main rule. If the main rule isnt contradicted there is no exception, it would fall under the main rule.
ilikeflags wrote:
Wait, what? Haha. Sometimes I'm embarrassed by how much fun I have watching idiots at play.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Rules need to have some basis in reality... Every game humans play, has some basis in the real world... in the real world nothing is for free
Now you're just talking out of your ass.
ilikeflags wrote:
i'm afraid i don't understand the question
It's pretty straight forward. You called me an idiot, so why am I one?
ilikeflags wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand the question
ilikeflags wrote:
The more checkmateibeatu types, the more I agree with the original poster.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
claiming that existing rules are contradictory
Well they are...
rule 1)you *must move* under *all* circumstances... OR resign OR let your clock run out.
rule 2)if you find you have been outplayed and cant even make a move... ok no worries its a draw.
we should apply 1) to stalemate, not make silly addendums like 2)
It is illogical and contradictory when:
if, to a situation, you can apply an existing simple rule (ie rule 1 above), you dont apply it, AND go ahead and create a new rule which is in direct contrast to the first one!
Can you tell me why we cant apply the already established rule 1) to stalemate?
Why do we need to invent new contrary rules to rule 1, when rule 1 can be perfectlyl applied?
You are confusing contradictions with exceptions.
hehehe
exceptions to rules are PRECISELY exceptions BECAUSE they contradict the main rule. If the main rule isnt contradicted there is no exception, it would fall under the main rule.
I edited my post, but I'll ask here:
How do you feel about the ability to move pawns forward two squares, but only on the first move?
Or for pawns to capture the piece diagonally in front of them, unless the pawn placed beside them was just moved two squares?
Or that only one peice can be moved on a turn, unless the conditions for castling are met?
How about perpetual check? How should we end that game?
ilikeflags wrote:
yes, you are one.
Then why?
ilikeflags wrote:
Yes, you are one.
TheGrobe wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
claiming that existing rules are contradictory
Well they are...
rule 1)you *must move* under *all* circumstances... OR resign OR let your clock run out.
rule 2)if you find you have been outplayed and cant even make a move... ok no worries its a draw.
we should apply 1) to stalemate, not make silly addendums like 2)
It is illogical and contradictory when:
if, to a situation, you can apply an existing simple rule (ie rule 1 above), you dont apply it, AND go ahead and create a new rule which is in direct contrast to the first one!
Can you tell me why we cant apply the already established rule 1) to stalemate?
Why do we need to invent new contrary rules to rule 1, when rule 1 can be perfectlyl applied?
You are confusing contradictions with exceptions.
hehehe
exceptions to rules are PRECISELY exceptions BECAUSE they contradict the main rule. If the main rule isnt contradicted there is no exception, it would fall under the main rule.
I edited my post, but I'll ask here:
How do you feel about the ability to move pawns forward two squares, but only on the first move?
Or for pawns to capture the piece diagonally in front of them, unless the pawn placed beside them was just moved two squares?
Or that only one peice can be moved on a turn, unless the conditions for castling are met?
How about perpetual check? How should we end that game?
my friend... pls refer to #635
I saw that. You have exceptions to your exception rule. Curious.
Perpetual check's a real conundrum, though, how should that game end?