- Joined
- 22 Mar 07
- Moves
- 49432
Originally posted by Dragon FireWell, since you have the dictionary out, you may want to look up "dynamic". Nevermind, I'll do it for you. It says:
By definition oxymorom is "a figure of speech that combines two apparently contradictory ideas". I do not see contradictory ideas in the phrase "dynamically the same" so the answer to your question is no.
Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress
... now lets look up "same"...
unchanged in character, condition, etc.
Ok, homework assignment for you: go to www.urbandictionary.com and look up "owned".
1 edit
Originally posted by mnelsondynamics in chess are a special thing unto themselves
Well, since you have the dictionary out, you may want to look up "dynamic". Nevermind, I'll do it for you. It says:
Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress
... now lets look up "same"...
unchanged in character, condition, etc.
Ok, homework assignment for you: go to www.urbandictionary.com and look up "owned".
i.e initiative,whose move it is ,development, and other things.
Originally posted by tomtom232did he pay you to say this...??? oh please.... chess god.... you need to get out more, find a woman
Dragonfire is about 710 rating points higher than you and from some of his games I have looked at he could be even higher so any advice he gives on chess you should look at it as advice from some chess god who makes moves you'll never comprehend.
Originally posted by gaychessplayerwhy do you have to have 113 posts in agreement with you to be satisfied..? why can you not just be satisfied with your own opinion and be happy with that... why do you need 113 more comments in order to boost your ego..?
While I admit that there is no "right" or "wrong" answer to the situation in question, I'm somewhat satisfied that of the 113 posts in this thread that NOBODY agreed with mnelson.
mnelson made a point, a fair point... if you bothered to read his post properly you would appreciate his point, give him some respect like others to you and learn to accept a difference of opinion
Originally posted by mnelsonFirst of all Soccer is not a sport and a 0-0 tie in any game that has a net as big as time square is a disgrace.
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.
Also if anyone should lose in a perpetual check situation it should be the person in check since he/she can't figure a way out of it. There's nothing unsportsman like when a lower rated piece is able to constantly attack the most powerful piece on the board.
Originally posted by hamltnblueThe king is hardly the most powerful piece. It can move a pathetic 1 square and even when centrally placed can only manage 8 moves. All the other pieces, except pawns can cover at least as many squares and get around the board far quicker and pawns can become queens so that really makes the king rather feeble.
First of all Soccer is not a sport and a 0-0 tie in any game that has a net as big as time square is a disgrace.
Also if anyone should lose in a perpetual check situation it should be the person in check since he/she can't figure a way out of it. There's nothing unsportsman like when a lower rated piece is able to constantly attack the most powerful piece on the board.
Originally posted by mnelsonWhat is the point in debating the rules of chess here?
Either way makes more sense than the game ending in a draw.
This is one of many threads that are hugely irritating as they are not particularly constructive.
If you wish clarification of the rules then I'm sure you will get advice.
If you wish to have the rules of chess amended then why don't you approach FIDE and get them to change them. The vast majority of players on this site understand and accept the rules of chess, and abide by them without moaning.
If you wish to invent your own set of rules then feel free to do so and play elsewhere.
Your initial post on this thread stated:
'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.'
The repetitive move rule is NOT crap.
Everybody did NOT agree.
Who cares what happened to the thread?
It was certainly NOT a great topic.