You literally have to move the king, it's a bullshit mechanic that will never ever be fixed.
2 years ago
Anonymous
In that instance, yes.
But on a more fundamental note, your king is under attack. You don't *have* to solve the check, but if you don't, you'll lose the game.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You don't *have* to solve the check
yes you do, it's a rule
2 years ago
Anonymous
You could always forfeit instead
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You literally have to move the king,
stupid moron
2 years ago
Anonymous
>getting double checked
Holy scruberoni. Were you not paying attention to the game?
>Every game
not really
>loss imminent >do not resolve it
Gee anon, I wonder what happens next?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>>loss imminent >>do not resolve it
I just mean, you can have a game without a loss state.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What part of loss-imminent do you not understand?
2 years ago
Anonymous
How do you arrive at this board state? I fail to see it
2 years ago
Anonymous
Bg5+
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thanks, I was being moronic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
this was the previous board state before white moves its bishop
2 years ago
Anonymous
Profound mental moronation
2 years ago
Anonymous
how can you even get into that position?
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's bullshit on your behalf, it's a rule that exists so that morons such as yourself don't lose from their own idiocy by making a stupid move.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I cant even think of how you could legally get into a position where theres a discovered check and then the opponent can still create a second check. wouldnt the game end by checkmate the turn the first check is discovered? wouldnt it be illegal to make any move besides moving king to the right the turn before?
2 years ago
Anonymous
how can you even get into that position?
this was the previous board state before white moves its bishop
2 years ago
Anonymous
you are more moronic, autistic or bait better than i though.
What was the prior black move moron
2 years ago
Anonymous
White moves the bishop once the game is in
this was the previous board state before white moves its bishop
and then it's black's turn, who is in check,
You literally have to move the king, it's a bullshit mechanic that will never ever be fixed.
. What does it matter what black did to arrive at
this was the previous board state before white moves its bishop
? That's a legal game state, he could've moved c6 for all I know.
2 years ago
Anonymous
before
2 years ago
Anonymous
you a stupid fricker
2 years ago
Anonymous
stop talking to the mirror
2 years ago
Anonymous
>no u
uh oh uh oh uh oh!!! he is bait ing!
funny irony meme shitpost humor
2 years ago
Anonymous
you are the one making the most moronic thread of the day, congrats on that! It must be the highest achivement of all your life
2 years ago
Anonymous
>your thread
2 years ago
Anonymous
yes im OP, the great wienersucker. Now forgive me zanzibart
2 years ago
Anonymous
Are you mentally disabled? The literal object of the game is to take your opponents king. Every other move you make is supposed to build towards that. Of course you have to fricking move your king if you're in check. I know chess is a great game to teach kids but you do have to be 18+ to post on this website.
You don't have to move it. You just have to protect it. Are you fricking moronic? Just move your own Bishop/Knight in the way. Then your opponent has to move their Bishop away or sacrifice it.
I like speed chess rules >touched a piece that you didn't want to move, have to move or you'll lose instantly
also >make an illegal move >you lose again
homosexuals at chess tournaments let famous morons get away with game losing moves though(letting them do something else), because they're corrupt and should be all killed.
Honest question: would chess be fundamentally different if check and checkmate weren't a thing, and the game simply ended if you captured the enemy king?
No it doesn't. The game ends when there are no possible moves that prevent your king from theoretically being captured next turn. If I moved my king into an enemy queen's attack range, that wouldn't be a game-losing move, it would simply be an illegal move.
No, it wouldn't be a legal move at all. You are not allowed to move your king into check and the king can't be captured. You don't understand how chess works.
Committing to an illegal move (refusing the warning of moving into a check) would be game-losing, so it technically it is game losing. You CAN do it but chess is meant to be honourable.
It is a game-losing move. If you move your king into an opponent’s attack range, you lose the game.
Yes, TECHNICALLY it would forfeit the game, but only in the same way that flipping the table or throwing your knight at the opponent's face is a game-losing move. It's not a valid move at all, which I would say is different from a game-losing move (i.e. one that lets your opponent put you into checkmate)
Yes, making an illegal move knowingly is unsportsmanlike. Depending on the rules, if you do it accidentally you might forfeit the match even for doing it accidentally, but in most chess environments, if you try to do that, your opponent or a ref will simply say "that's illegal" and you'd go "oh sorry" and maybe you'd get a time penalty or something. If you'd then go "I know, I want to do it anyway", yes obviously that's unsportsmanlike because then you're not playing chess.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I just followed this string of replies backwards, and correct me if I'm wrong, but are you actually discussing why sacrificing your king is a bad move?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Anon is suggesting that moving your king into check is a very bad move, while I'm saying that it's not a valid move at all. It's as much a "bad move" as, I dunno, Bd4 on turn 1. Yes, depending on what context you're playing in, it may lose you the game instantly if you commit to it, but that's simply because it's not allowed within the rules of the game and you're gonna be disqualified for being moronic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Anon is suggesting that moving your king into check is a very bad move, while I'm saying that it's not a valid move at all
does it actually matter? nobody in their right mind would discuss racing into the opposite direction during an active race, so why do it with chess?
2 years ago
Anonymous
it does matter, stalemate is a thing
It would definitely make a difference. For example, in pic related, white has just blundered and turned the game into a stalemate. It's black's turn and they have no valid moves, and therefore, the game is a draw. If the game simply ended by capturing the king, as you suggest, white would win on the next turn instead of drawing.
It wouldn't change anything about OP's moronic hangup though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, it does matter, see [...]
If what Anon said was true, white would be winning, while in actual chess, white just made a moronic move and threw an easy win
So then don't make a moronic move next time, you earned your own stalemate when you previously had a win
2 years ago
Anonymous
No shit, dumbass
2 years ago
Anonymous
Then what are you mad about, dingus?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't think anybody's arguing that that rule should be changed, we're simply illustrating that
It is a game-losing move. If you move your king into an opponent’s attack range, you lose the game.
's understanding of the rules is actually fundamentally different from how chess works, because there is a subtle difference between an illegal move and a game-losing move
2 years ago
Anonymous
? calling you a dumbass is being mad?
only a dumbass would think that
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, it does matter, see [...]
If what Anon said was true, white would be winning, while in actual chess, white just made a moronic move and threw an easy win
kek, I forgot about that. actually happened to me when I was close to beating my father for the first time. I was mad as hell.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, it does matter, see
It would definitely make a difference. For example, in pic related, white has just blundered and turned the game into a stalemate. It's black's turn and they have no valid moves, and therefore, the game is a draw. If the game simply ended by capturing the king, as you suggest, white would win on the next turn instead of drawing.
It wouldn't change anything about OP's moronic hangup though.
If what Anon said was true, white would be winning, while in actual chess, white just made a moronic move and threw an easy win
That specific rule was put in place solely because the people from the previous eras wouldn't be surprised by a foreseeable loss. It's a rule based on honour than anything else.
No, check is literally when the king could get captured, checkmate when there is no possible move that could save the king.
The games would last 1 turn longer but end the same way.
this.
chess is a gentleman's game, you're supposed to resign when it's clear that you have no options left, which is why the game traditionally ends at checkmate and the king doesn't technically get captured.
you show respect by acknowledging when you're beaten. this baffles and confuses the zoomer who has no concept of honour.
It would definitely make a difference. For example, in pic related, white has just blundered and turned the game into a stalemate. It's black's turn and they have no valid moves, and therefore, the game is a draw. If the game simply ended by capturing the king, as you suggest, white would win on the next turn instead of drawing.
It wouldn't change anything about OP's moronic hangup though.
The game would stay the same as far as I'm aware.
Check as a mechanic basically prevents your king to be captured, and it also serves the purpose of forcing your opponent to KNOW that their king is about to die. In that sense it's a bit of a help for the opponent in case they don't see that their king is under attack.
If you lose the king, the game ends. Simple as
In the first, you just need to do anything to block the path to your king. Any of these pieces could do it
In the second, there are two things going for the king, and nothing to block it. If a piece could make it to the blue square you could do it, but nothing is able. You could kill the horse, but you'd still be screwed by the rook. The king must move or it will be killed and the game will end. In the third, there are two things attacking the king from separate directions. You cannot possibly block them both, the king must move or it will die and the game will end.
In the third,
On a strategic level, putting somebody into check can be the equivalent of gaining an extra turn, because rather than your opponent having a turn to develop their board into something advantageous, they are forced to take a step back which is often sub-optimal. Not every check is like this - it is entirely possible to put your opponent into check and be worse off, for example - but generally checking is very powerful. Thinking of check not just as a way to go for the king, but as a strategy of gaining more moves, is a good first step for being less shit at chess.
Of course, it's not an issue with the game. It's like saying guns in a shooter should be nerfed because they're the best way to get kills.
I unironically think chess should get rid of the “check” and “checkmate” concepts, they just need to make it to where the king is a capturable piece and you are not required to move it out of danger. It’d be so kino to see grandmaster’s lose instantly without realizing when their king is captured
Chess is a shit game for autistics people unless you play like shit and blunder like a mofo without caring about winning. Basically a non game for people who didnt have computers back then. No amount of fixing could make chess good. People who like it just have sunk cost fallacy from investing time in it because they were autistics morons at some point.
good job anon your bait was obvious but entertaining. Now that we're on the topic of chess, has anybody here played multiverse chess? I'm interested in it, it's on Steam. It looks crazy
What do you mean move twice?
you move the king and white steals your turn
What? I don't follow
when the opponents check the king you have to move it or you lose the game. Your turn is stolen by the check.
Do you have to move the king specifically? Don't you just need to do anything that ends the check?
You don't have to move the king perse. You only have to resolve the check. You can do something else to block the attack.
You literally have to move the king, it's a bullshit mechanic that will never ever be fixed.
In that instance, yes.
But on a more fundamental note, your king is under attack. You don't *have* to solve the check, but if you don't, you'll lose the game.
>You don't *have* to solve the check
yes you do, it's a rule
You could always forfeit instead
>You literally have to move the king,
stupid moron
>getting double checked
Holy scruberoni. Were you not paying attention to the game?
>loss imminent
>do not resolve it
Gee anon, I wonder what happens next?
>>loss imminent
>>do not resolve it
I just mean, you can have a game without a loss state.
What part of loss-imminent do you not understand?
How do you arrive at this board state? I fail to see it
Bg5+
Thanks, I was being moronic.
this was the previous board state before white moves its bishop
Profound mental moronation
how can you even get into that position?
It's bullshit on your behalf, it's a rule that exists so that morons such as yourself don't lose from their own idiocy by making a stupid move.
I cant even think of how you could legally get into a position where theres a discovered check and then the opponent can still create a second check. wouldnt the game end by checkmate the turn the first check is discovered? wouldnt it be illegal to make any move besides moving king to the right the turn before?
you are more moronic, autistic or bait better than i though.
What was the prior black move moron
White moves the bishop once the game is in
and then it's black's turn, who is in check,
. What does it matter what black did to arrive at
? That's a legal game state, he could've moved c6 for all I know.
before
you a stupid fricker
stop talking to the mirror
>no u
uh oh uh oh uh oh!!! he is bait ing!
funny irony meme shitpost humor
you are the one making the most moronic thread of the day, congrats on that! It must be the highest achivement of all your life
>your thread
yes im OP, the great wienersucker. Now forgive me zanzibart
Are you mentally disabled? The literal object of the game is to take your opponents king. Every other move you make is supposed to build towards that. Of course you have to fricking move your king if you're in check. I know chess is a great game to teach kids but you do have to be 18+ to post on this website.
For instance in OP's pic, you can put the knight between the biship and the king, if the bishop takes, you take it back.
You don't have to move it. You just have to protect it. Are you fricking moronic? Just move your own Bishop/Knight in the way. Then your opponent has to move their Bishop away or sacrifice it.
shit b8
Rb8? how does that help?
Git gud and don't let the opponent check your king. Also, not vidya.
>getting discovered into a double check with a fork on your queen
?
>"AAAAA I'M BEING FORCED TO DEVELOP MY BISHOP HELP MEEEEEEEEE"
>put in a game-losing position
>ignore it
>lose the game
Every game does this, you must resolve the check or it's a loss.
>Every game
not really
>put in losing position
>every game
>loss imminent
You still missed my original point, not every game works like this.
Example of a game with no loss state?
Prince of Persia 2008
By the logic, Amnesia: Rebirth
I like speed chess rules
>touched a piece that you didn't want to move, have to move or you'll lose instantly
also
>make an illegal move
>you lose again
homosexuals at chess tournaments let famous morons get away with game losing moves though(letting them do something else), because they're corrupt and should be all killed.
Honest question: would chess be fundamentally different if check and checkmate weren't a thing, and the game simply ended if you captured the enemy king?
What the frick are you talking about, the game ends if you capture the king
No it doesn't. The game ends when there are no possible moves that prevent your king from theoretically being captured next turn. If I moved my king into an enemy queen's attack range, that wouldn't be a game-losing move, it would simply be an illegal move.
??? Yes it would, your opponent would take your king immediately after your turn ends. That’s a game losing move.
No, it wouldn't be a legal move at all. You are not allowed to move your king into check and the king can't be captured. You don't understand how chess works.
It is a game-losing move. If you move your king into an opponent’s attack range, you lose the game.
Only people with -100 IQ would willingly do that though.
It's actually a rule. You CAN'T move your king into an attacked position. There is no "taking" the king. Checkmate is the last state of the game.
Committing to an illegal move (refusing the warning of moving into a check) would be game-losing, so it technically it is game losing. You CAN do it but chess is meant to be honourable.
Yes, TECHNICALLY it would forfeit the game, but only in the same way that flipping the table or throwing your knight at the opponent's face is a game-losing move. It's not a valid move at all, which I would say is different from a game-losing move (i.e. one that lets your opponent put you into checkmate)
It wouldn't be unsportsmanlike to do so.
Yes, making an illegal move knowingly is unsportsmanlike. Depending on the rules, if you do it accidentally you might forfeit the match even for doing it accidentally, but in most chess environments, if you try to do that, your opponent or a ref will simply say "that's illegal" and you'd go "oh sorry" and maybe you'd get a time penalty or something. If you'd then go "I know, I want to do it anyway", yes obviously that's unsportsmanlike because then you're not playing chess.
I just followed this string of replies backwards, and correct me if I'm wrong, but are you actually discussing why sacrificing your king is a bad move?
Anon is suggesting that moving your king into check is a very bad move, while I'm saying that it's not a valid move at all. It's as much a "bad move" as, I dunno, Bd4 on turn 1. Yes, depending on what context you're playing in, it may lose you the game instantly if you commit to it, but that's simply because it's not allowed within the rules of the game and you're gonna be disqualified for being moronic.
>Anon is suggesting that moving your king into check is a very bad move, while I'm saying that it's not a valid move at all
does it actually matter? nobody in their right mind would discuss racing into the opposite direction during an active race, so why do it with chess?
it does matter, stalemate is a thing
So then don't make a moronic move next time, you earned your own stalemate when you previously had a win
No shit, dumbass
Then what are you mad about, dingus?
I don't think anybody's arguing that that rule should be changed, we're simply illustrating that
's understanding of the rules is actually fundamentally different from how chess works, because there is a subtle difference between an illegal move and a game-losing move
? calling you a dumbass is being mad?
only a dumbass would think that
kek, I forgot about that. actually happened to me when I was close to beating my father for the first time. I was mad as hell.
Yes, it does matter, see
If what Anon said was true, white would be winning, while in actual chess, white just made a moronic move and threw an easy win
That specific rule was put in place solely because the people from the previous eras wouldn't be surprised by a foreseeable loss. It's a rule based on honour than anything else.
No, check is literally when the king could get captured, checkmate when there is no possible move that could save the king.
The games would last 1 turn longer but end the same way.
When you capture a noble you don't execute them like a lowly peasant, you inform the nation's sovereign about it because it's honor rules.
only brainlets play until checkmate anyway.
this.
chess is a gentleman's game, you're supposed to resign when it's clear that you have no options left, which is why the game traditionally ends at checkmate and the king doesn't technically get captured.
you show respect by acknowledging when you're beaten. this baffles and confuses the zoomer who has no concept of honour.
If you played the game long enough, you can know with the remaining material you have left compared to the opponent that you have lost the match.
It would definitely make a difference. For example, in pic related, white has just blundered and turned the game into a stalemate. It's black's turn and they have no valid moves, and therefore, the game is a draw. If the game simply ended by capturing the king, as you suggest, white would win on the next turn instead of drawing.
It wouldn't change anything about OP's moronic hangup though.
The game would stay the same as far as I'm aware.
Check as a mechanic basically prevents your king to be captured, and it also serves the purpose of forcing your opponent to KNOW that their king is about to die. In that sense it's a bit of a help for the opponent in case they don't see that their king is under attack.
*blocks your path*
bad move, too defensive
If you lose the king, the game ends. Simple as
In the first, you just need to do anything to block the path to your king. Any of these pieces could do it
In the second, there are two things going for the king, and nothing to block it. If a piece could make it to the blue square you could do it, but nothing is able. You could kill the horse, but you'd still be screwed by the rook. The king must move or it will be killed and the game will end. In the third, there are two things attacking the king from separate directions. You cannot possibly block them both, the king must move or it will die and the game will end.
In the third,
>making a defensive move is losing a turn
The hell
On a strategic level, putting somebody into check can be the equivalent of gaining an extra turn, because rather than your opponent having a turn to develop their board into something advantageous, they are forced to take a step back which is often sub-optimal. Not every check is like this - it is entirely possible to put your opponent into check and be worse off, for example - but generally checking is very powerful. Thinking of check not just as a way to go for the king, but as a strategy of gaining more moves, is a good first step for being less shit at chess.
Of course, it's not an issue with the game. It's like saying guns in a shooter should be nerfed because they're the best way to get kills.
It's more of gaining the momentum rather than getting an extra turn. It's kinda like in fencing where you have to parry the incoming blow.
This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen. Hopefully I'm just being baited and OP isn't actually this moronic
I unironically think chess should get rid of the “check” and “checkmate” concepts, they just need to make it to where the king is a capturable piece and you are not required to move it out of danger. It’d be so kino to see grandmaster’s lose instantly without realizing when their king is captured
Just play better c**t
knight to c6
Chess is a shit game for autistics people unless you play like shit and blunder like a mofo without caring about winning. Basically a non game for people who didnt have computers back then. No amount of fixing could make chess good. People who like it just have sunk cost fallacy from investing time in it because they were autistics morons at some point.
Queen's gambit Accepted : Central Variation, Alekhine System, 4.Nc3
>Central Variation, Alekhine System, 4.Nc3
i understand some of these words
This is the most moronic thread I have ever seen on Ganker ever...
>how to announce you just started browsing Ganker this summer
>dumb joke about chess rules
>wrong understanding of said rules
>joke doesn't make sense
>lol it was a joke anyway I'm baiting so hard
I just wanted to start a chess thread and i had no idea on how to do it
First, I'd suggest making it on /tg/
/tg/ has a 24/7 general and i wanted a Ganker thread.
good job anon your bait was obvious but entertaining. Now that we're on the topic of chess, has anybody here played multiverse chess? I'm interested in it, it's on Steam. It looks crazy
haha i was just pretending to be a moron
why is chess so hard bros
great bait
One of you homosexuals has played Multiverse Chess right? Tell me what you think about it NOW.
>Chess players
>buying things
lol, lmao even.
OP is dumb but he is not wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess
about what
one side is better than the other side in a supposedly fair game
that's not what OP said
yeah but its what OP means
how did you even reached that conclusion