somethings definitely going wrong with @1e41-O
Let's get it straight: En passant isn't cheating.
Sort:
Chess4PK wrote:
@checkmateohwait Could you please unblock @1_a31-0? He has some very valuable points to make.
Yes, he was a valued for his questionable accustions
ZoomorBoom wrote:
Chess4PK wrote:
ChessSensasian wrote:
Chess4PK wrote:
ChessSensasian wrote:
Chess4PK wrote:
ZoomorBoom wrote:
Chess4PK wrote:
ZoomorBoom wrote:
1_a31-0 wrote:
ZoomorBoom wrote:
Chess4PK wrote:
Smh
Has nobody ever told you that Wikipedia is unreliable? And yes, chess.com has created this fake rule to cheat rating points out of us innocents. It would take a poor sport and cheater to exploit the glitch.
hmmmmmmm... If everyone makes it so that en passant is a rule, then it is a rule
hey! advaith, lets go around robbing banks! we want to make it a rule, so now its legal!
If the entire world made it legal, then it is legal techniqually
What you don't understand is that the entire world has NOT made it legal.
Most people agree that en passant is a rule. Majority wins, and en passant is a rule. If majority of people started protesting that robbing a bank was legal, it would become legal
You should read my forum. There, you'll see that I really want attention so I'm starting this for no reason, and the majority of players, including titled players, agree that en passant is a perfectly legal move.
It's not strange that there are a lot of professional players that also say that en passant is a legal move. It's just not a very known one.
And it's definitely not their opinion that it shouldn't be a legal move
Hah! Are you agreeing with titled players in knowledge of the rules?
Yes I am.
If they are titled players, then they should be aware that en passant is a legal move.
Chess.com says so. Many professional and titled players use it and say it’s legal.
So am I supposed to believe you? So far, you have just stated opinions.
I posted the chess.com article about En passant, which says that the move is legit
Did you just read the recent comments where an NM said the rule is perfectly fair and legal?
The NM who strangely has close to exact same name as another person? Those don't mean anything @Chess4PK
1) No titled player is crazy enough to have 2 accounts under the exact same name.
2) Why is this an argument?
because they think that en passant is a hack.
yeah @1e41-0 is an FM
i'm a lowly NM
and he's been on chess.com for like 5 more years than me
what's your point?
ZoomorBoom wrote:
Chess4PK wrote:
@checkmateohwait Could you please unblock @1_a31-0? He has some hilarious points to make.
Yes, he was valued for his unquestionably satirical accustions
Don't worry, @1a31-0 is just trolling.
isn't that just a little suspicious?
ZoomorBoom wrote:
because they think that en passant is a hack.
You should reread my post.
If a person says "Didn't murder anyone" and a murder just happened, isn't that suspicous
JustARandomPatzer wrote:
ZoomorBoom wrote:
because they think that en passant is a hack.
You should reread my post.
which post?
if a person says "that guy murdered someone" and the guy says "didn't murder anyone" is that suspisious?
Jun 19, 2020
0
#196
ZoomorBoom wrote:
If a person says "Didn't murder anyone" and a murder just happened, isn't that suspicous
What is your point there?
ZoomorBoom wrote:
isn't that just a little suspicious?
Not really. Also, titled players are allowed to have more than 1 account iirc
Jun 19, 2020
0
#199
For the record, I'll delete extreme nested quotes that affect the readability of the forums.
@checkmateohwait Could you please unblock @1_a31-0? He has some very valuable points to make.