Silfir's initial response was thoughtful, thorough, and entirely relevant to the issues at hand. The OP is the one trolling here, by refusing to grasp the meaning behind anything that has been said.
What exactly are you expecting, simp? Do you want everyone to just say "wowz dat sux, ur so kewl and nice tho!" and not think about anything else?
Into the cornfield.
And please don't come back out.
Into the cornfield.
Simp,
If you feel like your point is being confused, then perhaps you should clarifty?
Right now people have posted to point out that under the generally accepted rules of chess you rightly won the game. They have explained why this is the case.
Perhaps then you might explain what your question/discussion/point is? Do you simply wish to express that you feel bad winning this way?
If you had read every post you would understand how ridiculous some of this stuff is.
The problem is , you must have only read part of it, like most people who have posted and you are confusing the actual game with something they have put on here that has zero to do with it.
I understand that almost any position could come up , The one with the 2 knights and a Bishop is just ridiculous.
I also understand that his computer could blow up and I could win on time . They probably have about the same % of happening in a real life situation . I just thought it would be instantly obvious even to a 900 .
This site is as fine for me as it is for you. I tried to bring an issue that I thought was a problem with their program . If it is the rule then fine. I feel most of the posts have been either made by people who had no intention of doing anything but stirring up trouble or ill informed people who only read parts and therefore were totally irrelevant to the post. I will be putting you and a couple of other people on ignore , I suggest you do the same to me .
Just a small info (for those who didn't know), that there were official games won on time with K+N vs K+N. So, some positions/outcome might look ridiculous, but if there is a possible mate there, that's a win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monika_So%C4%87ko
This actually answers the question I had in a previous post.
Thank you
This will be the last time I ever ask or answer a question here, as it is just not worth it to deal with some people.
My questions in the beginning were legitimate ,I realize I am not an expert and I wanted to find out in the previous post what had happened and why.
A few people answered who had no more idea than I did and added pieces and scenarios and from then on it seemed everyone was talking about a completely different situation.
Some of it was probably caused by them only looking at part of the posts and being confused , I think some of it was just goading and frivolous answers intended to murk up the water.
I admit to getting caught up in it, that won't happen again.
I expected that on yahoo, I did not expect it here.
This actually answers the question I had in a previous post.
Thank you
This will be the last time I ever ask or answer a question here, as it is just not worth it to deal with some people.
My questions in the beginning were legitimate ,I realize I am not an expert and I wanted to find out in the previous post what had happened and why.
A few people answered who had no more idea than I did and added pieces and scenarios and from then on it seemed everyone was talking about a completely different situation.
Some of it was probably caused by them only looking at part of the posts and being confused , I think some of it was just goading and frivolous answers intended to murk up the water.
I admit to getting caught up in it, that won't happen again.
I expected that on yahoo, I did not expect it here.
I think you misunderstood the diagram with 2 Knights. He didn't add a piece, he used the position you gave in the first post, and showed that if you were allowed to make your opponent's moves for the rest of the game, there would be a possible way for you to checkmate him. In this case, it's a fairly convoluted sequence that involves him promoting his pawn into a Knight, then backing all his pieces into a corner and handing you the mate, but it is possible. And that's all the rules of chess ask; that a player is not awarded a full point by any of {Checkmate/Resignation/LossOnTime/GameForfeit} in a position in which it would be literally (not figuratively) impossible for them to checkmate their opponent if the game were extended.
I'm sorry that was the impression. Did the rules question get solved for you?