Go back
What happened to my 'repetitive move draw' th...

What happened to my 'repetitive move draw' th...

Only Chess

Vote Up
Vote Down

Good question.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Also the rule that requires you to checkmate the King. Why don't you lose if the Queen is lost.

That is sexist. A lost Queen should end the game.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by mnelson
It's lame! It goes against the strategic brilliance that is chess.

It's like a soccer game that ends in 0-0 tie, or a race that finishes under a caution flag. WTF??

It's far less elegant than the stalemate. Some stalemates are 10x more clever than many checkmates.

I think that the person that forces the perpetual check should lose -- plain and simple. It's an unsportman-like ending.
Sounds like sour grapes from someone who drew a game he thought he had won to me. And how is it unsporting? It's in the rules.

Fool.

Vote Up
Vote Down

and Knights! Why are they less powerful that Rooks.

Have you ever tried to mate with 2 Knights? Impossible but with 2 Bishops it is easy.

Blantant Animal Cruelty if you ask me. Horses should not be subject to such demeaning threatment. There is simply no place for them in a civilised game.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
Have you ever tried to mate with 2 Knights?
No. Why don't you and gaychessplayer tell us what it's like? Did it take a lot of convincing to get them to shed their armor?

Darn it, there I go again...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Ouch!

Vote Up
Vote Down

and Bishops! Why Bishops? What have you guys got against Muslims?

That is religious discrimination and should not be permitted. Bishops should be banned.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Interesting points.

Vote Up
Vote Down

As for pawns. It seems people sacrifice them willy nilly and why? Do pawns have a lesser right to life than Kings or Queens or even Bishops and Knights - in the modern world, no! Every life is precious and the sacrifice of a pawn is unreasonable and unfair. It is wrong to kill a pawn just because you can! Unfair! Unsporting!

If you take a pawn for no reason and without being prepared to offer at least a Knight in exchange then you should default the game on humanitarian grounds.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
As for pawns. It seems people sacrifice them willy nilly and why? Do pawns have a lesser right to life than Kings or Queens or even Bishops and Knights - in the modern world, no! Every life is precious and the sacrifice of a pawn is unreasonable and unfair. It is wrong to kill a pawn just because you can! Unfair! Unsporting!

If you take a pawn for no ...[text shortened]... to offer at least a Knight in exchange then you should default the game on humanitarian grounds.
Very PC DF I'm sure Cherrie Blair would be very pleased. Thought about being the next Prime Minister.

I HATE PC nonsense! 😠

Vote Up
Vote Down

What now?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by mnelson
I started a thread on how the repetitive move type draw is CRAP, as seen here:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=4144913

...and everyone agreed. What happened to the thread? It was a great topic.
Here is someone I would like you to meet. http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=80094

Vote Up
Vote Down

?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by pimpsandwich
Here is someone I would like you to meet. http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=80094
Hmm, if you're implying that I should agree that the timeout rule is unfair, you're wrong.

The timeout rule is fine. Why? Because it ends the game in a FORFEIT not a DRAW. The repetitive position rule should also end in a forfeit.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by mnelson
The repetitive position rule should also end in a forfeit.
Why should a player be forfeited for playing what might be the best legal move in the position? Talk about unfair!