06 Feb 06
Originally posted by SchumiYes, thats IF. But that aint never gonna happen. Never, and I'm certain you know that.😉
Do you mean how a stalemate would be a win if moving into check is allowed? You'd have a legal move in a stalemate position, i.e. king can move to somewhere that it's in check and then gets taken losing the game.
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyAt least 99% of the people would know what he meant. Not like you and your stupid shorthand that I am sure more that 90% of the people would have no clue what you were talking about.
It "ain't never" happening? I knew you would think my suggestions would become reality. 😉
GV
07 Feb 06
Originally posted by Nighthawk62"!=" to mean "not equal" has become so familiar to some people (such as myself) it is easy to forget that a lot of people are not aware of it. Not saying that people who do not know it are stupid, it is just another terminology.
I already said I learn something new every day. I'm mid forties........no PC's when I went to school. Hell I did not even take typing because PC's were not even on the horizon and i saw no use for the skill! I am a mechanic not a programmer. How would you like it if you brought your car to me to fix and I started using technical terms that you do not und ...[text shortened]... ople that misunderstand it. Talk about ignorant, self centered and full or yourself!
GV
Same way with saying "10%" instead of one tenth is confusing to some people (which is another form of shorthand notation).
07 Feb 06
Originally posted by Nighthawk62Calm down, I wasn't being serious in my last post. Just having some fun... and I never blamed you for not understanding what I meant. Stop being so sore about it, we all learn new things everyday; it's not a problem.
At least 99% of the people would know what he meant. Not like you and your stupid shorthand that I am sure more that 90% of the people would have no clue what you were talking about.
GV
07 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyThis seems the most logical. Watching some of the newer players in the chess club at my son's school, most assume the king can be captured until taught otherwise. If it's simpler and seems more natural that the king should be captured, then a better question is why, with all other changes to the rules that have gained acceptance over the centuries long history of the game, has this one never been adopted. That, though it more or less suggests itself, that particular mode of play has, to my knowledge, never had any serious impact on the history of the game, seems to indicate that it just doesn't make for as interesting a game. Whether we can explain it in words or not, there is just something unchesslike in the concept of capturing the king. While many changes to the rules have been made, and there may be more yet to come, if the change you suggest were made it just wouldn't be chess anymore. In fact, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it technically wouldn't even qualify as a chess variant. The concept of checkmate is so central to the idea of "chess" that it defines what is a chess variant and what is another game entirely.
It doesn't make sense to me that moving into check is not allowed in chess. Why not let the player decide. If he fails to see, the king will be captured and the game is over. If this isn't allowed, why should a player be allowed to move into a position that is mate in 3? I can't logically integrate this, why is it illegal?
Also, is there a rule that says that you must say check if the king is under attack?
It's very interesting to debate WHY the current rules concerning checkmate are such an essential part of the game. However, I believe the only way convincingly dispute THAT it is so is to get large numbers of people to start playing that way. Personally, I'd be stunned if anyone succeeded at this.
07 Feb 06
Originally posted by Nighthawk62The 'problem with today's society' is that anachronistic fossils like yourself insist on playing in this world without learning any of its conventions. You won't see me wrenching under the hood with my local GM mechanic unless I'm willing to bother learning how my car works.
I already said I learn something new every day. I'm mid forties........no PC's when I went to school. Hell I did not even take typing because PC's were not even on the horizon and i saw no use for the skill! I am a mechanic not a programmer. How would you like it if you brought your car to me to fix and I started using technical terms that you do not und ...[text shortened]... ople that misunderstand it. Talk about ignorant, self centered and full or yourself!
GV
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by exigentskyI agree that it is fair to put rules up for debate. Ultimately chess is a game, and is only worthwhile if it is enjoyable. Quite different from war which is never enjoyed by decent people. Personally, I think the rule not allowing one to move into check makes the game of chess better and more enjoyable.
Chess does not live in its own world isiolated from logic and common sense. I think it is fair to put its rules up to debate. And to me, having to tell my opponent he made an illegal move, instead of taking advantage of it and winning seems like an absurd notion. Why should I tell my opponent he mesed up and let him take back his move? I've dropped my que ...[text shortened]... common sense and chess is not immune from that.
BTW: I think your explanation is circular.
Furthermore, if such a rule change were to take place, comparisons with past games become invalid. It would be like shortening a football field to 50 yards and then bragging about having scored more touchdowns than past greats. (Sorry if this confuses those not familiar with American Football).
While it may be a small difference if you were allowed to capture a king left open, if you then go on to eliminate stalemates, that is a BIG, BIG, BIG difference. All chess experience we have in estimating a board position, even early in the game would be affected. What is the cost of doubled pawns? I can estimate under the current rules, but it changes if end-games are changed via elimination of stalemates. Many scenerios in which razor sharp play are required to secure a win or maintain a draw would be transformed into easy wins that require nothing but a blunt instrument and dull execution.
The comparison to a hung queen is not quite valid. If someone seemingly gives away their queen, there is a chance it is an intentional sacrifice that you're overlooking. If you offerred them a chance to take it back, they'd tip you off by not taking it back. That would spoil the fun of some brilliant play. A king sacrifice cannot exist, thus it is always a mistake. When regular pieces are hung, the game must proceed without discussion or else the potential beneficiary would be given information on what is a sacrifice and what is not.
Overall, chess is a game that is played by gentlemen (and gentleladies). One who is a friend at the beginning of the game, is still a friend at the end, regardless of how badly they beat me. A far cry from "war" in which anything goes. Personally, I'd rather execute a clever plan to corner a king than to luck up before the plan comes to fruition. If an opponent hangs a piece in an otherwise close game, I'm usually at least somewhat disappointed. How much more so than if they hang the king.
Some have pointed out that blitz chess allows the capture of a king. That's true, but stalemates are still draws in blitz.