It's a draw by stalemate. These are the rules fella, if a player has no legal moves but is not in check it is a draw. You could have checkmated him easily instead.
chess draws are so dumb
Sort:
there dumb rules they need looking at we have scores what are they for
toddy815 wrote:
there dumb rules they need looking at we have scores what are they for
What scores are you talking about?
toddy815 wrote:
there dumb rules they need looking at we have scores what are they for
Chess would be a less rich game without stalemates. As you learn more about chess you will understand that many endgames would be automatic wins, especially those with 1 pawn up, so that would be pointless.
So fixing a stalemate "problem" by excluding stalemate from the rules would create many more problems. In the end, you just need to be more careful next time. Don't let your opponent run out of legal moves without giving him check.
toddy815 wrote:
there dumb rules they need looking at we have scores what are they for
If you are ahead by more than a Queen and still can't manage to checkmate your opponent, then it isn't the RULES that are dumb.
deal with it, if you really want a change, go ask FIDE. Otherwise, whining won't really help.
SophusAndreas wrote:
toddy815 wrote:
there dumb rules they need looking at we have scores what are they for
What scores are you talking about?
Scores of toddy of course
Toddy raises you too such a level that everything looks dumb.
peace_myfriend wrote:
deal with it, if you really want a change, go ask FIDE. Otherwise, whining won't really help.
Or wining, but toddying might
blueemu wrote:
toddy815 wrote:
there dumb rules they need looking at we have scores what are they for
If you are ahead by more than a Queen and still can't manage to checkmate your opponent, then it isn't the RULES that are dumb.
Your comment just made my day.
Actually its one of the rules about chess that makes the most sense.
If u cant checkmate someone when u have so many attacking pieces and they only have their king, then u deserve to get a draw.
Its ur own inadequacy
Yes. This, one of the most talked about games recently, is trash.
...
Nobody owns chess so I don't give a damn what some tournament bureaucrat thinks. If the opponent can't move without being in check the you've won, that's how basically every variant of chess and most historical games were ruled. People playing the other way are just silly, and my opinion is just as valid as any chess tournament. Chess isn't finished, nobody has authority over how to score it. They can run their little leagues how they want, and I'll continue to regard the player who forced a stalemate the winner.
Strangemover wrote:
It's a draw by stalemate. These are the rules fella, if a player has no legal moves but is not in check it is a draw. You could have checkmated him easily instead.
hello everyone
Isn’t it funny how all the people that are against stalemate , en passant, and time wins all can’t spell
its sad I can tell most of you are the type of people who who will stay in a game even though you have 0% chance of winning. Your just hoping that your opponet makes a dumb mistake so you dont "technically" lose. Its a pathetic attituide and way to play. I can't stand people who just cant accept a loss as a loss, and pray an opponet is being careless. That's not you wining and being good at the game. Its an attitude of I dont really care about improving and accepting losses. I just care about ladder points to make myself feel better.
if you win a game by to many then the chance of the other player getting a draw go up so high so lets get it right cos your shit and i have loads of attackers were now at a draw it dont make any sence at all