People are just posting stupid pictures that have nothing to do with the proposed rule. I suppose the lack of any valid argument against it in four pages of posts should be proof enough that my rule has no downside and even serves to fix more of the game of Chess than I had intended.
Congratulations, a big success for you and for chess players everywhere.
don't forget, according to petermh5, he would have won due to his material advantage for a few moves...
wonderful game!!!
and rightly so; white got unlucky that the rules of Chess were not as they should be.
People need to learn that handing away pieces to your opponent is not a valid strategy. That much should be obvious.
People are just posting stupid pictures that have nothing to do with the proposed rule. I suppose the lack of any valid argument against it in four pages of posts should be proof enough that my rule has no downside and even serves to fix more of the game of Chess than I had intended.
well, the pictures make more sense relating to chess than the rule does...
hey, I have a great idea. You try and pitch your idea to chess.com. Let us know how it goes.
People need to learn that handing away pieces to your opponent is not a valid strategy. That much should be obvious.
the king is the most important piece. if sacrificing lesser pieces will win you the king and the game, then it is very good strategy.
hey, I have a great idea. You try and pitch your idea to chess.com. Let us know how it goes.
Chess.com is just a watering hole and nobbling site. He needs to pitch it to FIDE.
and rightly so; white got unlucky that the rules of Chess were not as they should be.
Yes... a narrow escape for Black! Under any sensible rules, he would have lost.
"Chess.com is just a watering hole and nobbling site. He needs to pitch it to FIDE."
why can't he try both? in fact, it is such a great idea that he needs to put it in the Constitution! Of course, the US constitution doesn't apply to everyone. So, everyone is going to have to form one giant country just to accommodate the sheer awesomeness of his idea.
Yes... a narrow escape for Black! Under any sensible rules, he would have lost.
Not as an insult to black, he is probably better than me and the average person, but he more or less cheated IMO.
Black was evidently a sly opportunist who exploited loopholes in the rules to pull out undeserved wins. What black did was against the spirit of the game in every way, but he stood to benefit and his moral compass was apparently not straight enough to play legitimately.
"Chess.com is just a watering hole and nobbling site. He needs to pitch it to FIDE."
why can't he try both? in fact, it is such a great idea that he needs to put it in the Constitution! Of course, the US constitution doesn't apply to everyone. So, everyone is going to have to form one giant country just to accommodate the sheer awesomeness of his idea.
There's something wrong with you. You've said nothing of sense this whole thread.
"Chess.com is just a watering hole and nobbling site. He needs to pitch it to FIDE."
why can't he try both? in fact, it is such a great idea that he needs to put it in the Constitution! Of course, the US constitution doesn't apply to everyone. So, everyone is going to have to form one giant country just to accommodate the sheer awesomeness of his idea.
There's something wrong with you. You've said nothing of sense this whole thread.
on the other hand, my scenario is equally likely as you convincing anyone on the chess.com staff that you're right
hey, I have a great idea. You try and pitch your idea to chess.com. Let us know how it goes.
I did. So far no one in the forums has been able to mount a valid argument against my proposal.
People are just posting stupid pictures that have nothing to do with the proposed rule. I suppose the lack of any valid argument against it in four pages of posts should be proof enough that my rule has no downside and even serves to fix more of the game of Chess than I had intended.
You will be GM soon.
Your proposal basically refutes itself due to insane levels of ridiculousness.
People are just posting stupid pictures that have nothing to do with the proposed rule. I suppose the lack of any valid argument against it in four pages of posts should be proof enough that my rule has no downside and even serves to fix more of the game of Chess than I had intended.
You will be GM soon.
Pfft. I heard GM isn't so great. Pretty much anyone can be a GM.
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' Keep them wagons Trollin'
You will be GM soon.
Perhaps if something changes. I'm not currently interested in investing time on such a fundamentally flawed game where handing pieces to your opponent is an acceptable "winning" strategy. That kind of garbage would never stand up in the real world.
hey, I have a great idea. You try and pitch your idea to chess.com. Let us know how it goes.
I did. So far no one in the forums has been able to mount a valid argument against my proposal.
I meant the staff of chess.com. And, also, there have been several great reasons against your argument; 1- a chess game can be won without material equality - see diagrams in previous comments- and 2 - there are sacrifices and combinations (one of my favorites is Damiano's mate -research it) that force a win at a material loss over more than two moves. 3- Many drawing techniques, such as opposite bishop endgames and fortresses, can hold a draw even though down material
And also, 4- if you blunder material, what stops your opponent from likewise blundering 3 or 4 moves later? At amateur chess, it is very common for material to shift dramatically throughout the game.
Try this one:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1243036
The loser was four times champion of France.
... and again, he would have been better off if one of those pieces was gone.
don't forget, according to petermh5, he would have won due to his material advantage for a few moves...
wonderful game!!!