Game "Drawn"

Originally posted by Bowmann
What I write is of no value if no one reads it and, more importantly, thinks about what I say. Looking at your posts, you seem more interested in being popular than right. But that's OK. You're far from alone.

I, however, choose to say what I believe is sensible with the benefit of consideration, and I'm not interested in winning votes from the ...[text shortened]... l you).

If you'd been one of the kids at my school, I think I'd have become a bully myself.

Bowmann, you tend to give one liner answers to peoples questions,
thinking thats somehow going to help, the dude was asking a
question and all you can do is put him down. That is the epitome
of sophomoristic thinking, cut em down so I can feel smart.
Hell, we know you are smart, so am I, so are a lot of people here,
but if a newbie asks a question, why insult him? Sounds like you
want it to be so elite only the invited ones get in the clique.
I told a guy about Ad Aware and Spybot and aida32 and hijack this
because I had studied the situation for a solid two years and you come
back with "that is bad advice" four stupid unbacked words. You never
did back up your statements and I seldom see you back up anything
you say, just a bunch of insulting oneliners. That may feed your
already bulging ego but it is of absolutely no help to the ones
asking the question.

This thread has ruined bowmann 😞

Originally posted by Coconut
This thread has ruined bowmann 😞

he was already ruined.

Originally posted by adje
It might be impractical and they indeed don't know if they have learned them all. But isn't that up to them? What do you care?

When one asks a question in the forum, there are three possibilities. 1. Someone is kind enough to help and doesn't mind giving the answer. 2. No one answers and they will eventually look it up somewhere else. 3. We get a lengthy ...[text shortened]... o one and does not come up with a definitive answer or truth. It are just all personal opinions.

No. The rules of chess certainly aren't up to them. No one can simply decide when to ignore them. They're called "rules" for a reason.

Believe it or not, I AM trying to help. I'm offering advice. Sometimes, one needs to appear unfair in order to do the best thing. Of course, I could decide to agree with you all and appear kinder. But kind doesn't mean helpful. And this isn't a popularity contest.

Originally posted by sonhouse
...the dude was asking a question and all you can do is put him down. ..if a newbie asks a question, why insult him?

I didn't 'put him down.' Nor did I insult him.

Originally posted by Bowmann
No. The rules of chess certainly aren't up to them. No one can simply decide when to ignore them. They're called "rules" for a reason.

Believe it or not, I AM trying to help. I'm offering advice. Sometimes, one needs to appear unfair in order to do the best thing. Of course, I could decide to agree with you all and appear kinder. But kind doesn't mean helpful. And this isn't a popularity contest.

put a sock in it bowmann.

It's quite obvious that the person who started this thread DID try and learn the basic rules - they knew how to move the pieces and what the object of the game was.

The two rules that people are most deficient in are stalemate and en passant, because they're not encountered that frequently. So I don't even know whether it's legitimate to call them 'basic' rules. Please advise me which rules AREN'T basic in that case.

I totally agree to that.

Originally posted by Bowmann
No. The rules of chess certainly aren't up to them. No one can simply decide when to ignore them. ...

Believe it or not, I AM trying to help. ...

Not knowing about stalemate is not ignoring the rules. And besides that, ignoring rules is not possible with RHP because any move is validated. So it is absolutely no problem.

I believe that you are trying to help. But I do also believe that you very well know that some of your 'help' or 'advice' is not helpful at all (to most people) and is also annoying people (to the very least). I think you enjoy provoking people.

Originally posted by orfeo
It's quite obvious that the person who started this thread DID try and learn the basic rules - they knew how to move the pieces and what the object of the game was.

The two rules that people are most deficient in are stalemate and en passant, because they're not encountered that frequently. So I don't even know whether it's legitimate to call them 'basic' rules. Please advise me which rules AREN'T basic in that case.

Of course these are basic rules! You wouldn't get very far as a player without knowing about them.

ALL rules concerning the setup of the board and pieces, how the chessmen move and capture, the object of the game (including check, checkmate, stalemate and other ways to draw) are BASIC.

Originally posted by adje
Not knowing about stalemate is not ignoring the rules. And besides that, ignoring rules is not possible with RHP because any move is validated. So it is absolutely no problem.

Stalemate is one of the basic "rules", and so I'm afraid that not to know about it is quite simply not knowing these rules.

The site shouldn't be used as an excuse. For example: Imagine a beginner, happily playing along until he loses a Pawn to an en passant capture. He is left puzzled and frustrated. He was never aware of this rule and could never have taken it into account during any of his games. So he was always at a disadvantage.

Originally posted by Bowmann
... Imagine a beginner, happily playing along until he loses a Pawn to an en passant capture. He is left puzzled and frustrated. He was never aware of this rule and could never have taken it into account during any of his games. So he was always at a disadvantage.

You are repeating yourself.

So what if a player does not know all the rules and therefore has a disadvantage? That is that players choice (if he knows it or not). What is your point?

I will repeat myself. If a person learns all the basic rules (whatever they are) or not is totally up to that person. One does not harm anyone by not knowing all the rules!

Another possible scenario:
Imagine a person learning the, what he thinks are, basic chess rules (whatever they are). Now imagine that person, happily playing along until he loses a Pawn to an en passant capture. He asks a question on the forum or looks it up somewhere else. He gets the answer and feels good that he learned something new. He happily plays along.

Originally posted by adje
You are repeating yourself.

So what if a player does not know all the rules and therefore has a disadvantage? That is that players choice (if he knows it or not). What is your point?

I will repeat myself. If a person learns all the basic rules (whatever they are) or not is totally up to that person. One does not harm anyone by not knowing all the rules! ...[text shortened]... e else. He gets the answer and feels good that he learned something new. He happily plays along.

Where am I repeating myself with this example? I admit it wasn't a great success, though, since you still fail to understand any of this.

It is, of course, every player's right, so to say, to remain ignorant of the basic rules of any game. My point is that every player ought to learn the basic rules first of all. That way, he's being fair on himself and on his opponents. I for one would hate to beat someone at chess, only to discover after the game that my opponent didn't know all the rules. It means I had an unfair advantage and can't take credit for winning. I would be disappointed, and the challenge a waste of time. I shouldn't be expected to ask each person I'm about to play whether he or she knows the rules.

I also owe it to myself and my opponents to know these rules.

Originally posted by Bowmann
Where am I repeating myself with this example? I admit it wasn't a great success, though, since you still fail to understand any of this.

It is, of course, every player's right, so to say, to remain ignorant of the basic rules of any game. My point is that every player ought to learn the basic rules first of all. That way, he's being fair on himself an ...[text shortened]... ther he or she knows the rules.

I also owe it to myself and my opponents to know these rules.

How can you possibly accuse someone, who signs up to a chess site then attempts to learn the rules of the game, of trying to remain ignorant of the rules. You keep banging on about this fabulous thing called google, and the Internet, and that's the medium people should be using to learn the rules of chess. Isn't that exactly what this person has done? Have they not googled a chess web site, then attempted to learn the rules via the medium you suggested?
Isn't asking people a valid way of learning. Do you think thats chool children should all go into school and not ask a damned thing of the teacher? Should they just sit there and read books?
The learning process should involve many different types of media and stimulus. One of these happens to be asking questions about things that you don't understand. YES, books are useful, Yes the Internet is great. But why can't someone just ask a simple question without being sneered at, and ridiiculed. Your attitudes to education are old school man.

Originally posted by jimslyp69
How can you possibly accuse someone, who signs up to a chess site then attempts to learn the rules of the game, of trying to remain ignorant of the rules.

I would applaud any beginner who registers in order to ask where to find reliable instruction on the rules. And yes, perhaps someone here could take them under their wing and teach them what they need to know. Naturally, this someone would be a good player who knows the rules.

But that's different from a beginner signing up and playing straight away, stopping only when he can't continue due to a lack of knowledge, and then asking others to point out what is wrong.