20 Oct 05
Originally posted by WulebgrI suggest you go through that thread again. Read it carefully, and you may see the point that currently appears to elude you.
Have you been trolling so actively that you fail to remember who you've attacked, and when?
I like pawns because they become queens.
(Of course, they may also become knights, bishops, and rooks. Most often, however, they are captured in battle. When they remain, they create the landscape in which the rest of the army does battle. ad nauseum.)
You r ...[text shortened]... derstanding, despite your prior hostility. You shine a lot of beams without shedding much light.
This isn't evidence you've posted, but emotive opinion. You should direct your last statement toward yourself...
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by WulebgrHeeeey, easy on my friend Bowmann. He KNOWS what he is talking about.
Have you been trolling so actively that you fail to remember who you've attacked, and when?
I like pawns because they become queens.
(Of course, they may also become knights, bishops, and rooks. Most often, however, they are captured in battle. When they remain, they create the landscape in which the rest of the army does battle. ad nauseum.)
You r ...[text shortened]... derstanding, despite your prior hostility. You shine a lot of beams without shedding much light.
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by TRAINS44I believe you that he knows what he's saying, but he often fails to communicate those thoughts. Then, he launches senseless attacks.
Heeeey, easy on my friend Bowmann. He KNOWS what he is talking about.
Originally posted by Bowmann
I suggest you go through that thread again. Read it carefully, and you may see the point that currently appears to elude you.
The point of your asinine criticism ceased eluding me long ago. Your error continues to stand clear, but it stands alone without your acknowledgement.
You accused me of ignorance of certain rules, but you never specified which rules. The only evidence ever presented by anyone--and you never presented any--was the revelation of your misreading of the clear intent of my post in favor of words that were not there.
21 Oct 05
there used to be this rule of a 16 move draw......but it existed ages ago. It was then increased to 32. However, with newer international laws coming in to place, like 2 steps for a pawn, this was also done away with. & the 50 move rule was put in place.
I remember wen i was in school we used to argue over this 16/32 move rule, even though it didnt exist then. & more often than not we (the minority) were forced to play with it.
21 Oct 05
1 edit
Jose R. Capablanca mentions the fifty-move rule in his Chess Fundamentals (1934). H.J.R. Murray, A History of Chess (1913) lists the fifty-move rule as included in the laws in Ruy Lopez's book of 1561, along with touch move, en passant, and a rule that has been abandoned long ago--that check can be ignored if it is not announced. Shatranj (a chess variant in Islamic countries going back more than 1000 years) had a seventy-move rule similar to the fifty-move rule.
21 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrOK, so you refuse to read the thread. Not my problem.
You accused me of ignorance of certain rules, but you never specified which rules. The only evidence ever presented by anyone--and you never presented any--was the revelation of your misreading of the clear intent of my post in favor of words that were not there.
I now believe you deliberately use three words where one will do, in order to cover up the fact that you really have nothing to say.
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by BowmannI read it, dude.
OK, so you refuse to read the thread. Not my problem.
I now believe you deliberately use three words where one will do, in order to cover up the fact that you really have nothing to say.
Again you throw out an inane criticism without support. You spend a lot of time correcting folks' grammar and spelling, but you inundate us with oblique assertions. The self-appointed grammar police ought to be capable of clear expression of simple ideas, yet you eschew such clarity.
21 Oct 05
Originally posted by Wulebgras far as I recollect if you ignore this check, the opponent my take your King, winning the game even if there is no forced mate
[cutrefering to a book from the 16th century by Ruy Lopez] ...and a rule that has been abandoned long ago--that check can be ignored if it is not announced. [cut]
23 Oct 05
Originally posted by PonderableIn modern chess, you may not ignore a check. It isn't allowed, and the king cannot be captured. The closest position you can come to actual capture of the king would be checkmate, a full move prior to such capture, or stalemate, which is 1/2 move prior to such capture. I'm not sure what the remedy is if a player can show that a check was overlooked by both participants during a game, as I have never experienced this, but I suspect some of the more knowledgeable people here can clarify.
as far as I recollect if you ignore this check, the opponent my take your King, winning the game even if there is no forced mate
23 Oct 05
Originally posted by BLReidWell, if it is a tournament game where both players have been recording the moves, the clocks must be stopped as soon as it is discovered that an illegal position occured, and the game positioned is restored to the last legal position before the illegal move occured. Play is resuemd from there, with no adjustment to either clock.
In modern chess, you may not ignore a check. It isn't allowed, and the king cannot be captured. The closest position you can come to actual capture of the king would be checkmate, a full move prior to such capture, or stalemate, which is 1/2 move prior to such capture. I'm not sure what the remedy is if a player can show that a check was overlooked by both ...[text shortened]... ve never experienced this, but I suspect some of the more knowledgeable people here can clarify.
If it is a blitz game, I'm not positive on this, but I believe that if the illegal position is discovered within 10 moves of it occuring, the clocks are stopped, the illegal position is corrected, and 2 minutes of time are added to the clock of the player not responsible for the illegal move. If 10 moves are played before the illegal move is discovered, then play just resumes as normal and no penalties are issued. Again, I am not certain, but this is what I remember the rule to be by best recollection.