PDA

View Full Version : King taking



Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 10:27 PM
Can anyone justify to me the reason why we cannot take kings and why FIDE have now taken this 'rule' to the extreme?

Is it 'tradition'? What is the reasoning behind not allowing king captures historically? Is it to stop 'cheapo checks' and people blundering their kings?

You would not believe the trouble I have explaining to my students aged as young as 5 in some cases why you have to checkmate and not take the king.

Child: 'I took his king and I won!'
Me: "Actually, you're not supposed to take kings, you have to checkmate"
Child: "But isn't the goal to get the king?"
Me: "Yes, but you have to stop one move before you take him!"
Child: "Why?"
Me: "...."

The easy way to implement checkmate is forcing the kids to say check every time so they don't GET their kings taken but even so.. it's a chore.

I challenge any of you to justify why the law should stay and that kings cannot be taken. Proceed.

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 10:32 PM
Can anyone justify to me the reason why we cannot take kings and why FIDE have now taken this 'rule' to the extreme?
Well actually king captures were never allowed because it is illegal to leave the king in check except in the blitz rules prior to 1992.
Cjeckmate has always stated that the game ends when the king is in check and has no legal moves.
This really isnt a difficult concept.
All FIDE has done is made the laws consistent.
If you cannot capture the king in a normal game (and you never could) then there is no reason why you should be able to in blitz.


Is it 'tradition'? What is the reasoning behind not allowing king captures historically? Is it to stop 'cheapo checks' and people blundering their kings?

You would not believe the trouble I have explaining to my students aged as young as 5 in some cases why you have to checkmate and not take the king.

Child: 'I took his king and I won!'
Me: "Actually, you're not supposed to take kings, you have to checkmate"
Child: "But isn't the goal to get the king?"
Me: "Yes, but you have to stop one move before you take him!"
Child: "Why?"
Me: "...."

The easy way to implement checkmate is forcing the kids to say check every time so they don't GET their kings taken but even so.. it's a chore.

I challenge any of you to justify why the law should stay and that kings cannot be taken. Proceed.
You may as well ask why do queens move the way they do, or rooks, bishops and especially knights.

Why cant you pick up the football in soccer.
Why cant you you have forward passes in rugby league.

The answer to all those questions are simple.
Its the rules.

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 10:39 PM
That response is devoid of any imagination. Try asking 'why' to things a little more often, Bill.


You may as well ask why do queens move the way they do, or rooks, bishops and especially knights.

Bill, why do Queens move the way they do? To allow the game to progress more quickly - in the past queens moved only one square diagonally. It is like in Australian Rules where the new 'minimum 15 metre kick' rule allowed the game to progress more quickly.


Why cant you pick up the football in soccer.
Why cant you you have forward passes in rugby league.

The answer to all those questions are simple.
Its the rules.

To pick up the ball in soccer and have forward passes in league would make them entirely different games, contravening the principles of the game. This does not and is only a small amendment.

Still the question remains; WHY HAVE THIS RULE?

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 10:59 PM
That response is devoid of any imagination. Try asking 'why' to things a little more often, Bill.
Actually the only one devoid of any imagination is you.


Bill, why do Queens move the way they do? To allow the game to progress more quickly - in the past queens moved only one square diagonally. It is like in Australian Rules where the new 'minimum 15 metre kick' rule allowed the game to progress more quickly.
So what one could argue they are no fundamental changes to the original game.


To pick up the ball in soccer and have forward passes in league would make them entirely different games, contravening the principles of the game.
So to do that would contravene the principles of the game.
Well it just so happens that in chess a fundamental principle of the game is that the game ends when the king is checkmated.


This does not and is only a small amendment.
Its not a small amendment at all.


Still the question remains; WHY HAVE THIS RULE?
You appear to have missed the point completely.
As I said, capturing the king has always been a no no.
The game ended with checkmate.
Think about it logically for just one second.
The movement of the pieces are all defined.
An integral part of chess is that the king cannot move into check nor be left in check.
In fact once checkmate occurs the king has no legal move.
Hence there is no opportunity for the king to be captured because the player who king has been checkmated has no legal move.

What are you going to propose, that the rule should be that the king cannot move into check nor be left in check except in the case where it has no other move. This makes absolutely no sense at all.

Rincewind
16-11-2004, 11:01 PM
Still the question remains; WHY HAVE THIS RULE?

Your earlier message is misleading. As Bill states the object of the game is not to capture the king - it never has been. The only question was how to handle the capture of the king in Blitz. I had an interpretation which is consistent with the current rules which says it is not illegal to take the king, however, neither does it wni the game. When the new rules come into force that interpretation will no longer be valid.

That is why this rule was introduced to provide a consistent interpretation so that chess is played consistently around the world.

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 11:08 PM
Your earlier message is misleading. As Bill states the object of the game is not to capture the king - it never has been. The only question was how to handle the capture of the king in Blitz. I had an interpretation which is consistent with the current rules which says it is not illegal to take the king, however, neither does it wni the game. When the new rules come into force that interpretation will no longer be valid.

That is why this rule was introduced to provide a consistent interpretation so that chess is played consistently around the world.

Forget the blitz rule for now, I want to get at the core of why king-taking is not a part of chess. It is obvious that chess is a dynamic and ever-evolving game and was originally played with different rules. Yet when establishing rules, why do you think the creators did not include king-taking?

Rincewind
16-11-2004, 11:10 PM
Forget the blitz rule for now, I want to get at the core of why king-taking is not a part of chess. It is obvious that chess is a dynamic and ever-evolving game and was originally played with different rules. Yet when establishing rules, why do you think the creators did not include king-taking?

It would be superfluous. Why introduce a rule which would slow the game down?

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 11:13 PM
Also checkmate comes from the Persian meaning the king is helpless or defeated and not that the king is dead.

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 11:17 PM
Actually the only one devoid of any imagination is you.

Wow, childish contradiction with no basis. Good show Billfred, I should have known a civilised chat wiht you is impossible. :hand:



So what one could argue they are no fundamental changes to the original game.

How would you define fundamental? The pieces used to move differently, so they are not fundamental aspects? What are, then?



So to do that would contravene the principles of the game.
Well it just so happens that in chess a fundamental principle of the game is that the game ends when the king is checkmated.

Why is it though? Is it because it's a more fun way of winning? Because it gives the player an opportunity to effectively resign a move earlier? What are the reasons behind it?






You appear to have missed the point completely.
As I said, capturing the king has always been a no no.
The game ended with checkmate.
Think about it logically for just one second.
The movement of the pieces are all defined.
An integral part of chess is that the king cannot move into check nor be left in check.
In fact once checkmate occurs the king has no legal move.
Hence there is no opportunity for the king to be captured because the player who king has been checkmated has no legal move.

Wrong - they are all defined at this moment but this was not always the case. Is it a case of legality then? Only because it contravenes allowable moves? Castling was not there since the beginning and neither was en passant. They used to be 'illegal' moves. Why must this remain but for the sake of tradition?


What are you going to propose, that the rule should be that the king cannot move into check nor be left in check except in the case where it has no other move. This makes absolutely no sense at all.

Imagine for a second this rule extended to leaving pieces en prise. What kind of game would we have then? Why is it only the king that is subject to these rules? They are not integral, they are dynamic.

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 11:18 PM
It would be superfluous. Why introduce a rule which would slow the game down?

On the contrary, it would speed it up greatly if one left their king en prise.

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 11:19 PM
Also checkmate comes from the Persian meaning the king is helpless or defeated and not that the king is dead.

I considered that, however when one 'takes' a piece you are not killing it at all - you are capturing it. Taking the king would have the same meaning. Foiled by your own definition! :cool:

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 11:26 PM
Wow, childish contradiction with no basis. Good show Billfred, I should have known a civilised chat wiht you is impossible. :hand:
Actually you were the first to be childish with your lack of imagination comment, instead of addressing the issue.


How would you define fundamental? The pieces used to move differently, so they are not fundamental aspects? What are, then?
The aim of the game is fundamental.


Why is it though? Is it because it's a more fun way of winning? Because it gives the player an opportunity to effectively resign a move earlier? What are the reasons behind it?
Because thats the rules, just like you said its the rules that you cannot pickup the football in soccer or forward pass in rugby.



Wrong - they are all defined at this moment but this was not always the case. Is it a case of legality then? Only because it contravenes allowable moves? Castling was not there since the beginning and neither was en passant. They used to be 'illegal' moves. Why must this remain but for the sake of tradition?
It has nothing to do with tradition as I see it.
Its to do with the aim of the game. which is to checkmate the king.
irrespective of the changes in the moves of the pieces, it has never been allowable to remain in check or move into check. that is another fundamental aspect of the game.


Imagine for a second this rule extended to leaving pieces en prise. What kind of game would we have then?
Irrelevant because then you would not be playing chess.


Why is it only the king that is subject to these rules? They are not integral, they are dynamic.
No they are not dymanic.
An integral part of chess is that you win by checkmate and that a king can neither be left in check nor moved into check.
With these integral rules in place there is no possibility for capturing the king.

Rincewind
16-11-2004, 11:26 PM
On the contrary, it would speed it up greatly if one left their king en prise.

I certainly would not look forward to such 'early' victories.

But I misunderstood you position. I thought you were talking about taking the king in accordance with the normal rules. (IE consumating the checkmate with the actual capturing of the king on the next move).

If you are talking about removing the whole concept of check, and being in check, then you are talking about a fundamental change in the rules. The importance of the king would be reduced. What about castling out of check? Why not? What about promoting to a new king on the move after your old king was captured? Why not?

There are a lot of variants you could cook up, but they would be just that, variants. It you remove check from chess the game would be almost unrecognisable. (A bit like Blitz ;) but more like losers or suicide).

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 11:29 PM
I certainly would not look forward to such 'early' victories.

But I misunderstood you position. I thought you were talking about taking the king in accordance with the normal rules. (IE consumating the checkmate with the actual capturing of the king on the next move).
Yes That is what I took him to be talking about.


If you are talking about removing the whole concept of check, and being in check, then you are talking about a fundamental change in the rules.
He seems to fail to appreciate this.


The importance of the king would be reduced. What about castling out of check? Why not? What about promoting to a new king on the move after your old king was captured? Why not?

There are a lot of variants you could cook up, but they would be just that, variants. It you remove check from chess the game would be almost unrecognisable. (A bit like Blitz ;) but more like losers or suicide).
Exactly.
Its life Jim but not as we know it. ;)

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 11:37 PM
Actually you were the first to be childish with your lack of imagination comment, instead of addressing the issue.

It wasn't my intention to be rude but it was true - you just jumped in and didn't consider where I was coming from, so I was disappointed. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.


The aim of the game is fundamental.

Taking the king may seem radical but going by what I've said about what is really 'capturing' I don't see why it couldn't become compatible with the fundamental aim of the game - it is still about 'capturing' the king simply in a different sense. I see no contradiction, only an equivocation depending how you look at it.


Because thats the rules, just like you said its the rules that you cannot pickup the football in soccer or forward pass in rugby.

See above justification for being compatible with the goal of chess.


Irrelevant because then you would not be playing chess.

Can I ask you then, the original Chess (Persian Chess) with the weak queen, the jumping bishops and the pawns that move one square - is that 'playing chess'?


No they are not dymanic.
An integral part of chess is that you win by checkmate and that a king can neither be left in check nor moved into check.
With these integral rules in place there is no possibility for capturing the king.

As above.

Ian_Rogers
16-11-2004, 11:42 PM
It is still quite legal to take the king in blitz.
The Rules Commission considered a change a few years ago and postponed any decision on it.
However Geurt Gijssen, who believed that taking a king should be illegal subsequently used his Chess Cafe column to imply (or maybe even state) that taking the king was illegal. Other Rules Commission members were at all not happy about this but they had no public fora to explain the situation, so many believe that the rules have been changed.
Stewart Reuben, a sometime contributor to teh ACF Bulletin, could be contacted for further details.

Ian

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 11:43 PM
Your post above seems to be in error. It shows some of my commentst as yours. You failed to quote them.

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 11:44 PM
What about castling out of check?

Actually I never liked this rule either! What's the precedent for this anyway? I'm sure you could have a different interpretation on it.


There are a lot of variants you could cook up, but they would be just that, variants. It you remove check from chess the game would be almost unrecognisable. (A bit like Blitz ;) but more like losers or suicide)

Variants that are arguably more fun :P

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 11:45 PM
It is still quite legal to take the king in blitz.
The Rules Commission considered a change a few years ago and postponed any decision on it.
However Geurt Gijssen, who believed that taking a king should be illegal subsequently used his Chess Cafe column to imply (or maybe even state) that taking the king was illegal. Other Rules Commission members were at all not happy about this but they had no public fora to explain the situation, so many believe that the rules have been changed.
Stewart Reuben, a sometime contributor to teh ACF Bulletin, could be contacted for further details.

Ian
All of what you say is true Ian under the current laws.
However it will no longer be legal from 1st July 2005 according to the laws Stewart emailed me which I explained in detail in another thread.
I will email them to you/Cathy.

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 11:46 PM
It is still quite legal to take the king in blitz.
The Rules Commission considered a change a few years ago and postponed any decision on it.
However Geurt Gijssen, who believed that taking a king should be illegal subsequently used his Chess Cafe column to imply (or maybe even state) that taking the king was illegal. Other Rules Commission members were at all not happy about this but they had no public fora to explain the situation, so many believe that the rules have been changed.
Stewart Reuben, a sometime contributor to teh ACF Bulletin, could be contacted for further details.

Ian

Hey, that's awesome! I wonder why no one else picked up on this?

Bill Gletsos
16-11-2004, 11:47 PM
Hey, that's awesome! I wonder why no one else picked up on this?
Dont be so happy yet.
See my response to Ian.

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 11:47 PM
All of what you say is true Ian under the current laws.
However it will no longer be legal from 1st July 2005 according to the laws Stewart emailed me which I explained in detail in another thread.
I can email them to you/Cathy if you like.

Maybe those laws don't apply to blitz?

P.S. I edited that other post.

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 11:48 PM
Dont be so happy yet.
See my response to Ian.

It's all moving along so fast tonight!

Rincewind
16-11-2004, 11:48 PM
Actually I never liked this rule either! What's the precedent for this anyway? I'm sure you could have a different interpretation on it.

Now you're just trolling.


Variants that are arguably more fun :P

Ditto. I think you are spending too much time playing variants. God created variants for a bit of light relief. The tail was never meant to wag the dog!

Alan Shore
16-11-2004, 11:53 PM
Now you're just trolling.

I was serious.....! Oh well ;)




Ditto. I think you are spending too much time playing variants. God created variants for a bit of light relief. The tail was never meant to wag the dog!

I get told that a little too often.. but did you know there are players on FICS with over 50,000 suicide games? :eek:

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 12:04 AM
It wasn't my intention to be rude but it was true - you just jumped in and didn't consider where I was coming from, so I was disappointed. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.
Ok then.
Note if I had not been seriously responding to your post you would have been called you a goose by now. ;)



Taking the king may seem radical but going by what I've said about what is really 'capturing' I don't see why it couldn't become compatible with the fundamental aim of the game - it is still about 'capturing' the king simply in a different sense. I see no contradiction, only an equivocation depending how you look at it.
As barry pointed out your are still not being totally clear.
If you are suggesting that there should be no such thing as check at all then, as he pointed out what you would then be playing would not be chess but just another variant.


Can I ask you then, the original Chess (Persian Chess) with the weak queen, the jumping bishops and the pawns that move one square - is that 'playing chess'?
The modern game is derived from it. However the concept of check and checkmate was the same then as now. Hence checkmate and check are fundamental to the game.

Ian_Rogers
17-11-2004, 01:49 AM
Thanks, Bill. I'll have a good look at the 2005 Laws.

Ian

arosar
17-11-2004, 07:09 AM
Hey BD . . . . what u want mate? You want king captures in normal chess too?

AR

pax
17-11-2004, 10:51 AM
Your earlier message is misleading. As Bill states the object of the game is not to capture the king - it never has been. The only question was how to handle the capture of the king in Blitz. I had an interpretation which is consistent with the current rules which says it is not illegal to take the king, however, neither does it wni the game. When the new rules come into force that interpretation will no longer be valid.

That is why this rule was introduced to provide a consistent interpretation so that chess is played consistently around the world.

The way I always interpreted the king capture in Blitz, was that it was in fact merely a way to claim a win over the opponent's illegal move (leaving their king in check).

The problem is that if you capture the king falsely (i.e king wasn't in check), there is then no way to prove the illegal move, wheras if you leave the king in check and claim, it is on the board for all to see.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 11:57 AM
The way I always interpreted the king capture in Blitz, was that it was in fact merely a way to claim a win over the opponent's illegal move (leaving their king in check).
Up until 1992 the blitz rules actually stated this.
However it was removed in the rules rewrite at that time.


The problem is that if you capture the king falsely (i.e king wasn't in check), there is then no way to prove the illegal move, wheras if you leave the king in check and claim, it is on the board for all to see.
That case is really no different from making any other sort of illegal capture.
e.g. A player captures your queen by illegally making a knight move.
With no witnesses how do you prove the capture was illegal.

Alan Shore
17-11-2004, 12:00 PM
Hey BD . . . . what u want mate? You want king captures in normal chess too?

AR

Yes I do.

I had such a crazy dream last night.. was at this tournament and watching two little girls play and one of them castles while in check. Then some of the crowd starts calling out 'illegal move!' and the girl who made the move doesn't know what they're talking about - she thinks the move is fine and doesn't know what to do. I remember feeling sorry for her..

The second half of the dream involved me playing for the Brisbane Lions.. we were 47 points down against Collingwood and the opposition was taunting us when I used my great pace to snatch up the ball, go for about six bounces and snap a goal. I ran hard and kicked a few more to get us right back in the game, then I woke up because I was thirsty (maybe from all that running?).

Oh yeah, something else.. one of my Professors offered me a drink in his office and was telling me I could go on a free trip to Israel to do some research.. ahem, anyway, that's enough dreams from me.

Alan Shore
17-11-2004, 12:02 PM
That case is really no different from making any other sort of illegal capture.
e.g. A player captures your queen by illegally making a knight move.
With no witnesses how do you prove the capture was illegal.

Well that's a silly argument, you could do the same thing by taking a Queen illegally.. you have to watch for it.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 12:05 PM
Well that's a silly argument, you could do the same thing by taking a Queen illegally.. you have to watch for it.
You really should think before you post as once again you missed the point.

Pax was saying that if the king was not in check but is captured there is no way to prove it as the king is no longer on the board.
I was pointing out that this was true for the capture of any piece.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 12:07 PM
Yes I do.

I had such a crazy dream last night.. was at this tournament and watching two little girls play and one of them castles while in check. Then some of the crowd starts calling out 'illegal move!' and the girl who made the move doesn't know what they're talking about - she thinks the move is fine and doesn't know what to do. I remember feeling sorry for her..
Yes, we can all feel sorry for her that the person who taught her chess did not teach her the rules.

arosar
17-11-2004, 12:11 PM
Oh yeah, something else.. one of my Professors offered me a drink in his office and was telling me I could go on a free trip to Israel to do some research.. ahem, anyway, that's enough dreams from me.

Eewww....yuck!

You're into that sort of thing are you?

AR

Rincewind
17-11-2004, 12:12 PM
The way I always interpreted the king capture in Blitz, was that it was in fact merely a way to claim a win over the opponent's illegal move (leaving their king in check).

The problem is that if you capture the king falsely (i.e king wasn't in check), there is then no way to prove the illegal move, wheras if you leave the king in check and claim, it is on the board for all to see.

The other problem with that interpretation is that it is not supported by the rules. Nowhere does it say the aim of chess is to capture the king or that by capturing the king you are signalling an illegal move. It is supported by common practice, which is something, just not the rules.

Alan Shore
17-11-2004, 12:14 PM
You really should think before you post as once again you missed the point.

Pax was saying that if the king was not in check but is captured there is no way to prove it as the king is no longer on the board.
I was pointing out that this was true for the capture of any capture.

Haha, right you are Bill.. I just woke up so didn't read that properly, whoops!

Alan Shore
17-11-2004, 12:16 PM
Eewww....yuck!

You're into that sort of thing are you?

AR

.... what do you mean by that?

It was for some kind of Ph.D scholarship I think which I would be interested in, in a bit over a year.

Garvinator
17-11-2004, 01:47 PM
Haha, right you are Bill.. I just woke up so didn't read that properly, whoops!
waking up at 12pm, nice to see those sleep patterns coming back to normal ;)

Ian Rout
17-11-2004, 02:58 PM
Pax was saying that if the king was not in check but is captured there is no way to prove it as the king is no longer on the board.
I was pointing out that this was true for the capture of any piece.

In fact it's true of any move, whether a capture or not, that there is no way to prove whether it was illegal. The only way to verify it, other than arbiter or witnesses, is to have video or a sensory board.

It could perhaps be argued that illegalising King capture at least reduces one potential source of disputation or unproveable claim - though if you follow the line to its logical conclusion a player could put the King back and there is no proof that it was ever captured so we're back at the start.

Of course as I think was noted by someone earlier (Barry?) you can play lightning with King capture and it's just another variant (you can call it, say, TrueBlitz), unless it's an official FIDE or ACF lightning event, so I don't think most of us need to get upset about the issue most of the time. It does seem, though, that it's more about one person's obsession than any generally recognised problem in need of a solution.

antichrist
17-11-2004, 06:11 PM
Yes I do.


Oh yeah, something else.. one of my Professors offered me a drink in his office and was telling me I could go on a free trip to Israel to do some research.. ahem, anyway, that's enough dreams from me.

Yeah, try the other side of the Wall.

JGB
17-11-2004, 06:15 PM
Yeah, try the other side of the Wall.

yeah but I think that would be another kind of research. ;)
... Although he may want to learn about building Molotv cocktails, home made napalm or how set off a suicide vest I doubt his lecturer would sponsor it. ;)

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 10:48 PM
In fact it's true of any move, whether a capture or not, that there is no way to prove whether it was illegal.
Thats true.
However since the original post referred to capturing I replied in the same vein.


It could perhaps be argued that illegalising King capture at least reduces one potential source of disputation or unproveable claim - though if you follow the line to its logical conclusion a player could put the King back and there is no proof that it was ever captured so we're back at the start.
Exactly.


Of course as I think was noted by someone earlier (Barry?) you can play lightning with King capture and it's just another variant (you can call it, say, TrueBlitz), unless it's an official FIDE or ACF lightning event, so I don't think most of us need to get upset about the issue most of the time.
True, however I suspect the average club player would expect to be playing by FIDE rules.



It does seem, though, that it's more about one person's obsession than any generally recognised problem in need of a solution.
I take it you mean Geurt.

antichrist
18-11-2004, 06:31 PM
yeah but I think that would be another kind of research. ;)
... Although he may want to learn about building Molotv cocktails, home made napalm or how set off a suicide vest I doubt his lecturer would sponsor it. ;)

The same could have been learnt from the Polish uprising and more relevantly from the Israeli (Jewish) terrorists from 1948 onwards, who went on to become leaders. Just as Arafat did. Unless you go to the other side of the wall you cannot really know. A WW11 army man told me that about so-called "cowards" -- meaning "don't judge them!". Also send to Blood... thread

Alan Shore
05-12-2004, 03:11 AM
So anyway, I got a bit screwed over today at the QLD Lightning. Before the start of the tournament, there was a mumbled announcement from DOP Ian Murray that one had to claim an illegal move to win. With the new laws being implemented in June next year, I'm sure the issue would have been raised at the CAQ AGM, also on today. Based on the mumbled announcement, me and a few others took it to mean king taking would be prohibited in the tournament.

So anyway, first round, I get my king taken. I ask the DOP 'But didn't my opponent just make an illegal move?' And something was mumbled back about 'Oh but that's alright' and my opponent go the win.

I am not in the slightest disappointed by the result, as I am for king-taking and fully accept I left it en prise but what I did expect was some kind of consistency in the rules. If a DOP says something, they shouldn't be changing their mind while the tournament is underway from what they had announced prior to it. :confused:

Garvinator
05-12-2004, 07:24 AM
You actually expected a rules debate at the agm, silly boy :P your situation is part of the reason why the rules have been done the way they have with king captures, so that is it very clear what the rules are. Take the king, lose the game.

antichrist
05-12-2004, 10:35 AM
Now you're just trolling.



Ditto. I think you are spending too much time playing variants. God created variants for a bit of light relief. The tail was never meant to wag the dog!

I thought God made blonde models for purpose! (sorry Jenni)

antichrist
05-12-2004, 10:37 AM
[QUOTE=Bruce Dickinson]Yes I do.
AR:
I had such a crazy dream last night.. was at this tournament and watching two little girls play and one of them castles while in check. Then some of the crowd starts calling out 'illegal move!' and the girl who made the move doesn't know what they're talking about - she thinks the move is fine and doesn't know what to do. I remember feeling sorry for her..

I can only say AR that Lebos have much more interesting dreams than Pinoys.

arosar
05-12-2004, 12:00 PM
I can only say AR that Lebos have much more interesting dreams than Pinoys.

You must be dyslexic. That was Bruce.

AR

antichrist
05-12-2004, 08:15 PM
You must be dyslexic. That was Bruce.

AR

In that case he lays back and dreams of Mother Israel being stuffed by Ariel Sharon.

Alan Shore
05-12-2004, 11:53 PM
In that case he lays back and dreams of Mother Israel being stuffed by Ariel Sharon.

I dream of peace in the Middle East, unlike you who dream of chaos, unrest, war and perpetuated hatred by spreading your BS propoganda.

antichrist
06-12-2004, 06:35 PM
I dream of peace in the Middle East, unlike you who dream of chaos, unrest, war and perpetuated hatred by spreading your BS propoganda.

That is a peace where Israel can get away with the biggest land robbery in the second half of last century. The big con is not working and they are deservedly getting hated for it.

When the next wipe-out comes around don't start wondering why. You are prepared to sacrifice innocent, just Jews to further rub innocent Palestinian noses in the mud. You obviously don't care about Jewish lives, just as the Zionist didn't when killing Jews in Iraq.

That program about ancient Israel is on TV so I am on off, I was trying to think up a pun about King taking and Jesus, King of Jews being taken but my flag has fallen.

I still want to meet you in Brissy one day. Second week of New Year - we might become buddies (look there are pigs up there, flying towards Israel??)

arosar
06-12-2004, 06:38 PM
When you boys are dreaming, do you dream in colour?

AR

Alan Shore
07-12-2004, 12:56 AM
That is a peace where Israel can get away with the biggest land robbery in the second half of last century. The big con is not working and they are deservedly getting hated for it.

Old news from you, we've been over this before. British gave the land to Israel, Zionists bought it legally and the UN went along with it all, even if it was perhaps a form of compensation for the holocaust. Then neighbouring nations attack it, Israel crushes opposition despite being seriously outnumbered wiht inferior resources and then those surrounding countries do a big whinge and want their land back. Israel have been more than charitable in complying with these unfounded requests simply to try to avoid conflict and reach a peaceful resolution. I know I've said this before but you seem to keep conveniently forgetting it.


When the next wipe-out comes around don't start wondering why. You are prepared to sacrifice innocent, just Jews to further rub innocent Palestinian noses in the mud. You obviously don't care about Jewish lives, just as the Zionist didn't when killing Jews in Iraq.

What on earth are you blithering about?


That program about ancient Israel is on TV so I am on off, I was trying to think up a pun about King taking and Jesus, King of Jews being taken but my flag has fallen.

Well the king does have a cross atop his head.. a mysterious Christian parallel? :P


I still want to meet you in Brissy one day. Second week of New Year - we might become buddies (look there are pigs up there, flying towards Israel??)

I'm happy to meet with you if you are here, seriously.

Alan Shore
07-12-2004, 12:58 AM
When you boys are dreaming, do you dream in colour?

AR

Of course.

Although I love the Iron Maiden song, 'Dream of Mirrors' :

I only dream in Black and White
I only dream 'cause I am alive
I only dream in black and white
To save me from myself

antichrist
07-12-2004, 02:22 PM
Old news from you, we've been over this before. British gave the land to Israel, Zionists bought it legally and the UN went along with it all, even if it was perhaps a form of compensation for the holocaust. Then neighbouring nations attack it, Israel crushes opposition despite being seriously outnumbered wiht inferior resources and then those surrounding countries do a big whinge and want their land back. Israel have been more than charitable in complying with these unfounded requests simply to try to avoid conflict and reach a peaceful resolution. I know I've said this before but you seem to keep conveniently forgetting it.



What on earth are you blithering about?



Well the king does have a cross atop his head.. a mysterious Christian parallel? :P



I'm happy to meet with you if you are here, seriously.

As we are in the wrong thread I will limit my answer to: The land was not Britton's to give and there are about 40 UN Resolutions (I believe) that Israel has not complied with. Call it quits in this thread.

A parallel could be that in blitz the king does not see it coming just as Jesus didn't, or otherwise wouldn't have said "Father, why has thou forsaken me?"

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2004, 03:35 PM
I challenge any of you to justify why the law should stay and that kings cannot be taken. Proceed.

I always assumed it came from a wartime history that the defeated opposing leader was permitted to surrender/go into exile at a point where defeat was unavoidable rather than be executed, and that executing a powerless defeated opposing monarch who was willing to surrender (which any sane monarch would do) was considered bad form. However I have not actually studied the history on this point.

Similarly with the queen move, I read somewhere that that mirrored the increasing power of women in the European nobility at a certain phase of history rather than just being a way to speed the game up. However I haven't read that Yalom book about the history of the chess queen that may go into more detail about this. Anyone know?

Alan Shore
16-12-2004, 03:49 PM
It seems George Bush has no respect for history then.. he captured the 'King' of Iraq :P

arosar
16-12-2004, 03:57 PM
It seems George Bush has no respect for history then.. he captured the 'King' of Iraq :P

Yeahhh....he's a bad sport that bastard Bush. He's got all the bloody pawns in Cuba and won't give them back for another game.

AR

Garvinator
16-12-2004, 04:04 PM
It seems George Bush has no respect for history then.. he captured the 'King' of Iraq :P
but he hasnt executed the king, yet ;)

Alan Shore
16-12-2004, 04:08 PM
but he hasnt executed the king, yet ;)

Yes but when you take pieces in chess you 'capture' them. Then you release them all back for the next game, hehe. Hence I see no problem with 'capturing' the king. If it really meant 'killing/destroying' then that may be a different story.

antichrist
16-12-2004, 06:54 PM
King Arafat is up there enjoying his 72 maids - more than most of us - aye