05 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by exigentskyI did not realize that you intended to abolish stalemate with your rule. I predict that if your variant was adopted, and many of the theoretically drawn endgames became forced wins, it would cause an increase in materialistic play, and discourage gambits and risky attacking play overall, thus making the game very dull.
I never said fewer draws make it harder to win, I'm not sure where you get this. I also don't think draws should be eliminated, only reduced.
Allowing moving into check does more than punish "idiots", thus saving time. It reduces the draws in chess. I think this is a good thing.
I play for fun also, but I play to win as well. A lot of the fun comes ...[text shortened]... st way to win is the most efficient way to do it. I think Fritz will agree with that too. 😉
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyNO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CHECKMATE DOES NOT EQUAL CAPTURING THE KING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I explained that with the definition of checkmate. You are just toooooooooooooooo friggin dense to get and I am begining to think I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, checkmate != capturing the king, but think beyond that. Why do you checkmate your opponent, why is it the goal of the game? It is so because once checkmated, capturing the king would inevitably follow and without the king, your opponent's forces are useless.
As for the knight plus king vs king not being a draw, you may be right. I didn't analyze i ...[text shortened]... variant based on my idea, I won't call it chess. Don't worry. I'll call it Chess Improved.
GV
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyYes, war is war. BUT each time your opponent trys to move a piece, and its NOT to get out of check, you gotta say "cant do that". So he goes to another piece not getting out of check, you gotta again say "cant do that". And if he again trys a move without trying to get out of check, again you say "cant do that". Now thats 9 words you said to the loser when all you could have said was "check",..1 word instead of 9. Besides, he might not have SEEN that check and you shock the sh!t outta him by calling check, thus giving him a heart attack and killing him dead on the floor....thus winning. Right? So buddy...just call check.😉
Yeah, in the end that's the only real reason I see for it. But it's war, the hell with courtsey. I will take advantage of every blunder, every slip and every inaccuracy I can see.
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyAnd again..jiust because you got the slob in check doesnt mean he blundered, like you say. So cool it man and play with a good attitude, like I do ...........TO KILL.
Yeah, in the end that's the only real reason I see for it. But it's war, the hell with courtsey. I will take advantage of every blunder, every slip and every inaccuracy I can see.
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by Nighthawk62Ya know Mr. Nighthawk62 I do agree with Mr. Exit. Checkmate IS capturing the king. Any rule book tells you when you have "captured the king, checkmate, you have won". Simple. No explanation needed for that. So after the checkmate just take the king off the board like you would a pawn or a rook. Player cant play without a king right? So now he's captured with all the other pieces. 😉
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CHECKMATE DOES NOT EQUAL CAPTURING THE KING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I explained that with the definition of checkmate. You are just toooooooooooooooo friggin dense to get and I am begining to think I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you!!!!!!!!!!!!
GV
05 Feb 06
3 edits
Originally posted by TRAINS44Well Mr. Trains look up the word checkmate in your webster's dictionary if you guys have one down there or I am sure there are online dictionaries that could be used. I have given it in one of the prevoius posts and explained why checkmate is not simply capturing the king according to that definition. I ask that you look at that definition closely and then make the argument. In addition chess is a game and does not need to make any parallel to real life and even if it did look at Iraq. The leader or king has been removed (checkmated) for a couple of years and hundreds or thousands have still died on both sides because there are still forces loyal to him. The rest of his so called pieces have not become useless as Mr. exigentsky's post would have predicted. I have pasted his post below.
[b]Ya know Mr. Nighthawk62 I do agree with Mr. Exit. Checkmate IS capturing the king. Any rule book tells you when you have "captured the king, checkmate, you have won". Simple. No explanation needed for that. So after the checkmate just take the king off the board like you would a pawn or a rook. Player cant play without a king right? So now he's captured with all the other pieces.
No, if your opponent takes a piece pinned to his king and checks you, he immediately loses.
You wouldn't have to respond to his check. You would only take his king. The king is like the brain of a body, when it is removed from the body, everything else falls apart too. Thus, once you capture the enemy king, his pieces are no longer coordinated, no longer able to act, no longer threats. Thus, by taking his king, you make all his pieces useless and so you do not have to respond to threats against your king. It is just as in checkmate. When it is checkmate, all your opponents pieces are immobile, uncoordinated and no longer threats; the game is over. Cut off the head and the body will die.
His post makes no sense to my real life example since it seems that it is real life that we are comparing chess to even though it is a GAME with rules hundreds of years old.
On a side note Mr. Trains have you got a blog somewhere about life "really down under" since I am curious and don't know of anyone else that has been down to Antartica. I have seen TV shows but when I go travelling I like to see the whole picture and not just that painted by the tourist location.
GV
05 Feb 06
And thus we see why being able to move into check is a bad idea.
1.We ahve to redefine the rules for castling.
2.We have to redefine pins.
3.We have to redefine endgames and lots of chess theory.
Those are 3 really big things in chess. If we ahve to change all this stuff t change that one rule, we must then conclude that the current rule si consistent with the others, whereas the new rule is not.
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by Nighthawk62The symbol "!=" means "not equal". You may untwist your panties now.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CHECKMATE DOES NOT EQUAL CAPTURING THE KING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I explained that with the definition of checkmate. You are just toooooooooooooooo friggin dense to get and I am begining to think I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you!!!!!!!!!!!!
GV
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by Nighthawk62I know what checkmate is and I did not write that it equaled capture. But clearly the point of checkmate is to later capture even if this is not done in game. Why do you think one would attack the opponent's king without giving it any flight squares if not to later capture it and thus break down the leadership and order in the opponent's army? It is implied that following checkmate the king would be captured by the winner.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CHECKMATE DOES NOT EQUAL CAPTURING THE KING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I explained that with the definition of checkmate. You are just toooooooooooooooo friggin dense to get and I am begining to think I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you!!!!!!!!!!!!
GV
05 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by razor2007Your right, it would be difficult and I'm not sure it would be a better idea at this point. I have never played this way. But it does seem a bit more consistent with the spirit of competition and that's all I wanted in terms of making it mroe sensical. I'm not trying to make it any more realistic than that, I don't want rooks replaced by tanks or knights or pawns replaced by marines. I only don't feel right helping my opponent by telling him he moved into check and his king would be dead if it weren't illegal. Also, just because there would be differences doesn't make the variant worse. Many of the differences you list are trivial anyway.
And thus we see why being able to move into check is a bad idea.
1.We ahve to redefine the rules for castling.
2.We have to redefine pins.
3.We have to redefine endgames and lots of chess theory.
Those are 3 really big things in chess. If we ahve to change all this stuff t change that one rule, we must then conclude that the current rule si consistent with the others, whereas the new rule is not.
1. If you castle through check, your king would be taken on the spot it passed through check, it is a lot like the "en passant" rule.
2. Pins would not be absolute, but if a piece pinned to the king attacks the opponent's king, the game would be lost. This is because it would not be necessary to respond to the check. The exposed king would simply be taken and the game would be won; the army would be left without a head and thus would not be threatening.
3. THIS IS THE BIG ONE! It would definitely redefine almost everything about the endgame, for better or worse. I do like that it would make chess less drawish, but I too am not sure it would really be better.
05 Feb 06
1 edit
So this:
" Players would have to be a little more careful and since draws are harder, brilliant combinations and moves would have to be found more often to survive."
Isn't saying that with fewer draws it's harder to win? If not, you must be saying thats it's harder to not lose, making it easier to win in a winning situation. HOW THE HELL IS THAT A GOOD THING? Draws are there for a reason. Believe me, your not the first to think of this, but the rule stays the same because almost everyone agrees that chess is better with it. When I was new to chess I didn't understand it either, but trust me, as you keep playing and you get better, you'll understand.
This thread is ridiculous >.
05 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnsRockDaHouseAbsolutely not! I'll break down things real carefully for you.
So this:
" Players would have to be a little more careful and since draws are harder, brilliant combinations and moves would have to be found more often to survive."
Isn't saying that with fewer draws it's harder to win? If not, you must be saying thats it's harder to not lose, making it easier to win in a winning situation. HOW THE HELL IS s you keep playing and you get better, you'll understand.
This thread is ridiculous >.
When I write players would need to be more careful, I'm referring to moving their king in check. Since it would lose the game instead of only being a warning, they need to take care of this. Also, they need to be more careful with material because its importance grows when draws become less frequent.
When I write that draws are harder, what that means is that draws are less likely to occur. This is since instead of being stalemated (because you can't move into check) if you are trapped, you will have to move into check and then lose the game. Thus, it is harder to draw, when down in material. Draws would be greatly reduced.
Lastly, when I write that "brilliant combinations and moves would have to be found more often to survive" what I mean is that it is easier to lose (not survive) since draws are less likely to occur. Thus, in order to not lose (survive), there is a greater need to be active and aggressive. Any slip can cost you the game. If you play mechanical and uninspired chess and find yourself in a king vs king plus two knights position, you will not draw, you will lose (not survive). Just replace "survive" with "not lose" and my meaning is clear. Both players have to work harder and play better chess to avoid defeat. Draws would be almost nonexistent.
05 Feb 06
3 edits
Originally posted by exigentskyThat's exactly what I said. "If not, you must be saying thats it's harder to not lose(that means easier to lose, incase you can't figure that out). That's not a good thing man. Draws give people who are down in material the ability to use spacial or tempo advantages and force a draw over a loss. Like I said (repeating myself is fun...) taking away draws puts alot more importance on material advantage, and puts alot more importance on the opening. This makes chess very one-dimensional. Why would you want the part of that game where you are just repeating variations you have studied the most important part of the game? And why would you want the part that requires the least amount of thought/analysis (material advantage is the easiestr by far to calculate) be the most important aspect? Simple. You wouldn't.
Lastly, when I write that "brilliant combinations and moves would have to be found more often to survive" what I mean is that it is easier to lose
05 Feb 06
Originally posted by PawnsRockDaHouseExactly!
So this:
This thread is ridiculous >.
As well he never rebutted my Iraq analogy or has come up with any good argument for the concerns regarding the other rule changes that would have to made regarding castling and pinning let alone what it would to to the centuries of theory that has gone into the game over the years. The game would be completely different and not be worthy of being called chess in any form as far as I am concerned.
GV
05 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemOk I did a google search on != and came up empty handed. As far as I know this is an exclamation mark and an equals sign. Is this new notation peculiar to this site or is it widely used. Been a long time since I was in school and yet still seem to learn something new eveyday.
The symbol "!=" means "not equal". You may untwist your panties now.
GV