Moving into Check

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The symbol "!=" means "not equal". You may untwist your panties now.

Originally posted by PawnsRockDaHouse
That'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 aw ...[text shortened]... is the easiestr by far to calculate) be the most important aspect? Simple. You wouldn't.

Originally posted by Nighthawk62
Exactly!

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

Originally posted by Nighthawk62
Ok 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.

GV

Originally posted by exigentsky
I was only referring to the first part of your post.

As for the rest of your comments, I don't see how it makes chess any more one-dimensional or less exciting.

Originally posted by Nighthawk62
Well 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 t ...[text shortened]... g I like to see the whole picture and not just that painted by the tourist location.

GV

Call me a dolt all you want, but I can't see chess being played any other way. As I see it, moving into check is another form of resignation. Moving into mate in 1 while staying out of check forces your opponent to think slightly before he wipes the floor with that shiny crown he just found. 😉 Just like moving into check, that would be silly. Now, I may not have as much experience as the rest of you, but I know that chess has been around for thousands of years - today's variation, just over a century. In that 150 years or so, no one has found an arguable reason to allow moving into check or castling through check. If that rule were changed, most people would have to relearn most of their tactics.

Originally posted by lawrence40
Call me a dolt all you want, but I can't see chess being played any other way. As I see it, moving into check is another form of resignation. Moving into mate in 1 while staying out of check forces your opponent to think slightly before he wipes the floor with that shiny crown he just found. 😉 Just like moving into check, that would be silly. Now, I may ...[text shortened]... ugh check. If that rule were changed, most people would have to relearn most of their tactics.

Originally posted by exigentsky
The only real thing that would need to be relearned is the endgame. As for the reasons to change this, I had hoped I gave some decent ones.

The only real upshot of this (assuming a en-passant style rule for castling through check) would be that a stalemate is a win rather than a draw. This would remove a lot of the subtlety from endgames, especially K+P endgames (an extra pawn would always win I'd imagine). If you think this would be a good thing, fair enough. I don't agree, and I doubt many would.

Originally posted by Schumi
The only real upshot of this (assuming a en-passant style rule for castling through check) would be that a stalemate is a win rather than a draw. This would remove a lot of the subtlety from endgames, especially K+P endgames (an extra pawn would always win I'd imagine). If you think this would be a good thing, fair enough. I don't agree, and I doubt many would.

Originally posted by TRAINS44
You would surely have to explain how in our universe a stalemate would be a win?

Originally posted by Nighthawk62
Ok I have looked at the fonts on my computer and have found several that have the proper sign for "not equal to". Perhaps Russ would consider changing the font that is used in these forums to accomodate these sorts of things. I'm going to try paste a few here but do not think they will come out right.

≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ &# ...[text shortened]... they look correct in the edit window though. Is there any way of the user changing the font?

This topic is now closed......by order of Chuck Norris. He made the rule of not being able to move into check because he found that when people moved their own king into check, somewhere a baby would shrivel up and die, and the very fabric of the universe would begin to split. Chuck would then have to go repair the tear by roundhouse kicking it shut. He got bored with this after awhile and so made the rule that you could no longer move the king into check. So there is the reason and this thread is now CLOSED

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
This is precisely why programming languages use "!=" for "not equal". Playing with 'special' characters is too much of a hassle.