Originally posted by GrobzillaIn totalitarian state you would not be allowed even to debate. In democracy even fools like you are allowed to state their worthless opinions. And no one has tried forbid to state your opinion here. So keep on demonstrating your ignorance.
That's the same argument used by every totalitarian state to keep political/religious debates away from them. Good company you're keeping.
Originally posted by PacifiqueIn your mind, what makes me a fool, and my opinion worthless? Other than you disagree?
In totalitarian state you would not be allowed even to debate. In democracy even fools like you are allowed to state their worthless opinions. And no one has tried forbid to state your opinion here. So keep on demonstrating your ignorance.
It seems you're the ignorant one. I didn't say we're in a totalitarian state. We're not. I'm saying you're totalitarian because you want to deny me my opinion with childish name calling and Ad Hominem attacks.
More to the point you raise with your bile: why so serious? It's a game. We're not debating anything serious. If we were, I think I can trust you'd be stark raving mad with hate.
13 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by GrobzillaYou are unable to refute argument about increasing role of material advantage which will make chess players to play more cautious and will make chess simpler and less spectacular.
In your mind, what makes me a fool, and my opinion worthless? Other than you disagree?
It seems you're the ignorant one. I didn't say we're in a totalitarian state. We're not. I'm saying you're totalitarian because you want to deny me my opinion with childish name calling and Ad Hominem attacks.
More to the point you raise with your bile: why so seri anything serious. If we were, I think I can trust you'd be stark raving mad with hate.
13 Sep 12
Grobzilla, I have posted like 20 times in a discussion from other chess forum which you are trying to copy here. For me it's really simple – games are played for fun, chess is no exception. Logic is irrelevant when we talk about rules. Bishop moving diagonally – is it logical? Is it illogical? It's neither. So is stalemate. Rules should be consistent which means for every scenario they should define what is legal, what is illegal, if they game continues or if it is over. This creates functional game and chess is definitely functional.
So we are left with the question of fun. Chess is certainly fun. I enjoy it a lot. Millions enjoyed it in the past and in the present.
Your variant is less fun because:
1. There is no place to play it – neither OTB nor on the internet.
2. Most of my books become obsolete. Only the opening theory will survive the change. For any middle- or endgame position I'll have to think hard if book analysis still holds in view of rule change.
3. Millions of games played become obsolete for same reason.
4. There is no software that supports it.
5. Finally I see stalemate as a fine defensive tool that adds to harmony and beauty of chess.
All this is highly subjective of course but I guess it's normal when we talk about game played for fun. Testing your variant will require quite an investment of time and effort and I don't see any reason to do it when I have a game that already satisfies all my needs.
13 Sep 12
Originally posted by Grobzillayour motto is "mate or die?" why did you take a draw in a game you were winning? you want chess and bridge rules changed, is there any game that you are currently happy with? why find stalmate illogical? surely a knight moving in a L shape while jumping over pieces or castling (moving 2 pieces in one move) is totally crazy. a queen having more power than the king, that makes no sense. as for having opinions, why not see if you can get anyone to agree with your idea, prove its a good one and i will give you a thumbs up, you have 8 down as i write this.
I've only ever played one or two games where I accidentally stalemated someone in the endgame. I've never been stalemated that I can remember. My style of chess rarely allows for it. "Mate or die" has always been my chess motto. And again, RHP is not the only place I play chess, or have played chess. Plenty more games under the belt.
But guess what? I'm ...[text shortened]... ad to ruin. I play the Grob almost exclusively as White, for Pete's sake. LOL
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by PacifiqueAnd you are currently unable to prove it. How would you? I can't refute evidence that doesn't exist. I'm simply proposing having games played. Then analyze the data. If it spoils the game, I'd vote to keep the current rule, no matter how illogical. I love the game as much as any other. But that doesn't preclude change.
You are unable to refute argument about increasing role of material advantage which will make chess players to play more cautious and will make chess simpler and less spectacular.
I just don't understand why some are acting towards me as if I was trying to abduct a family member. I'm only suggesting a possible improvement to a board game that might only affect a small portion of games.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by iruThat was the second-best argument I've read, and one that doesn't require much proof.
Grobzilla, I have posted like 20 times in a discussion from other chess forum which you are trying to copy here. For me it's really simple – games are played for fun, chess is no exception. Logic is irrelevant when we talk about rules. Bishop moving diagonally – is it logical? Is it illogical? It's neither. So is stalemate. Rules should be consistent which means ...[text shortened]... and I don't see any reason to do it when I have a game that already satisfies all my needs.
Respecting that, I'll be brief.
1) You're right, save an over the board game between two interested parties, which may indeed be none.
2) A similar situation to 960, or any variant. This can be seen either way: you lose some history and science, or, you get to create a whole new set. Preference is left to the individual.
3) Same
4) True. But there could be.
5) Again, not looking to remove it, just score it differently. I, and others, don't share your appreciation for it. I see it as one of the ugliest parts of the game that I love as much as you.
Finally, you may be right, it might not be worth it. But again it might be. We'll likely never know.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by roma45I took a draw because I'm not a good player. How is this relevant? And did you come to this assessment yourself, or just use the one provided earlier?
your motto is "mate or die?" why did you take a draw in a game you were winning? you want chess and bridge rules changed, is there any game that you are currently happy with? why find stalmate illogical? surely a knight moving in a L shape while jumping over pieces or castling (moving 2 pieces in one move) is totally crazy. a queen having more power than the ...[text shortened]... r idea, prove its a good one and i will give you a thumbs up, you have 8 down as i write this.
Rules aren't a popularity contest. It seems you're content letting other people think for you. Sorry, not me.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by GrobzillaThis is actually very important. If you were able to break down my 2 simple positions or understand Swiss' class E position then we might be done with this by now. Go back and really think what would happen if each side were to move in both types of chess.
I took a draw because I'm not a good player. How is this relevant?
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by GrobzillaWelcome to our club, then! Perfection is overrated, or so I am told, never having experienced it myself.
I misunderstood. It's absolutely a draw. I can admit when I'm wrong.
It is very possible that new players may have read the thread and learned something, so some good came from this.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by maxlangeChessic ability, of which you have no way of knowing what mine is, nor maybe I yours, has no bearing on the logicality of a set of rules. Mathematicians, Legislators, Philosophers, & Ethicists set up sets of rules & laws all the time on a widely varying range of subjects on which they could never be experts in all of. But that's why we have these people; they are able to see what is just or fair or logical or proper, partly without regard for expertise.
This is actually very important. If you were able to break down my 2 simple positions or understand Swiss' class E position then we might be done with this by now. Go back and really think what would happen if each side were to move in both types of chess.
Do NASCAR drivers make the rules for their races? Let alone for our roads? For example, who made the current set of FIDE rules for Chess? Only the best players with the deepest understanding? Not hardly. For one thing, if they did, it would invalidate all of your arguments because I can safely assume you are not one of the top players on the planet as we speak. You play better than me and they play better than you. Does that make your opinion insignificant?
And yes, of your two simple positions, I initially got part of one wrong. I was tired, I misunderstood, and I was wrong. And I already admitted to it. You keep bringing it up as if you were the discoverer of fire. Get over it. I was the wrong one and I already have.
But, no, I didn't evaluate the stalemate conditions incorrectly. In one, the giver had more material, in the other, the receiver. Under the current rules each was a stalemate. And you say they are equal. I disagree. And under the proposed rules, they would still be stalemate, but the score would be different, .75-.25 favoring the giver, as opposed to the current .5-.5, regardless of material, which is funny, because it keeps getting said it would make the the game more materialistic, yet, stalemates would continue to happen on either side of a material inequality, only the scores would change. Nothing about actual moves would change. Possibly the motivations and therefore strategies *might*, but we currently have no way of knowing, as it hasn't been tested. And you're afraid to.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by ChessPraxisThe Free Dictionary? Certainly the last word in Chess rules! 8-p
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/draw
10. To conclude a contest without either side winning; tie: [i]The chess players drew in 32 moves.
Also, I'm not debating draws, I'm debating stalemates. They are different things. They are only scored the same currently.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by GrobzillaOK, how about giving the player who is stalemated the full point? After all it is likely due to the other player's ineptitude that stalemate has occurred.
The Free Dictionary? Certainly the last word in Chess rules! 8-p
Also, I'm not debating draws, I'm debating stalemates. They are different things. They are only scored the same currently.