#clousems
Better than being hoist on one's own petard.
Better than being hoist on one's own petard.
Wait, I just realized that this whole time, we ignored the incredibly un-PC assumption implicit in the title of the thread that pieces are owned. This marginalizes those chess-playing monks who foreswear all ownership of material goods!
@clousems
I think you will find that monks are permitted to lease their pieces under rigorously controlled labor-relations best-practice conditions.
This fact is not widely broadcast,since owners of pieces are required to house and clothe them,and can only claim limited depreciation at tax time,whereas leasing allows for much more generous tax concessions,and you are not obliged to feed them.Plus..you can roll them over at the end of the lease term,or buy them outright at a significant discount to market price.
I think you will find that monks are permitted to lease their pieces under rigorously controlled labor-relations best-practice conditions.
This fact is not widely broadcast,since owners of pieces are required to house and clothe them,and can only claim limited depreciation at tax time,whereas leasing allows for much more generous tax concessions,and you are not obliged to feed them.Plus..you can roll them over at the end of the lease term,or buy them outright at a significant discount to market price.
@bunyip @clousems
This is starting to interest me, for although I realise you are both posting tongue in cheek, when I was in Portobello Market (restorer of 'smalls' trading antique chess sets 25 years). I often came across book boxes which when stood up in a book shelf looked like a pair of old leather bound books with the titles, (and only for example) History of England Vol 1 and 11.
The generally accepted story was that the Church frowned upon chess as a 'trivial' time wasting pastime and so the priests hid their sets inside these 'books'. The insides were for backgammon BTW.
This is starting to interest me, for although I realise you are both posting tongue in cheek, when I was in Portobello Market (restorer of 'smalls' trading antique chess sets 25 years). I often came across book boxes which when stood up in a book shelf looked like a pair of old leather bound books with the titles, (and only for example) History of England Vol 1 and 11.
The generally accepted story was that the Church frowned upon chess as a 'trivial' time wasting pastime and so the priests hid their sets inside these 'books'. The insides were for backgammon BTW.
Anyway, to steer the discussion back on topic, in order to promote equality amongst the pieces, each piece would be worth one point, and, in order to win, instead of checkmating the other king, after a set number of moves, maybe 40, whoever has the most points wins. "We hold these truths to be self-evident - that all men are created equal - and women, horses, and castles." Thus, all pieces are created equal, guaranteeing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all pieces. Well, at least until they're captured, but then, they're not technically citizens of the chessboard anyway.
@mewtwo204: I scoff at this incredibly un-PC suggestion. Below is a list of violations of the PC code in your suggestion that I was provided with the opportunity to find:
4. Marginalization of Permanent Residents and divers other forms of non-citizens, which I would provide, were I not bound by the rules of brevity, that eternal adversary of the PC code.
þ: You're post implies that all pieces were created, thus marginalizing those who believe that pieces were either manufactured or evolved.
🥞: This system you propose gives one individual who has the opportunity to compete the label of "winner" and the other of "loser."
漢: Complete and utter marginalization of Bishops and pawns
I therefore fine you 12 rating points. Let this be a warning to all who would attempt to make a mockery of Political correctness.
4. Marginalization of Permanent Residents and divers other forms of non-citizens, which I would provide, were I not bound by the rules of brevity, that eternal adversary of the PC code.
þ: You're post implies that all pieces were created, thus marginalizing those who believe that pieces were either manufactured or evolved.
🥞: This system you propose gives one individual who has the opportunity to compete the label of "winner" and the other of "loser."
漢: Complete and utter marginalization of Bishops and pawns
I therefore fine you 12 rating points. Let this be a warning to all who would attempt to make a mockery of Political correctness.
@clousems, I apologize for the offense, and consequently propose another far more-PC suggestion: One of the great atrocities of chess is that it discriminates against checker pieces. How dare we use the term "pieces," and not include checkers as well, maybe replacing every other pawn with a checker so as to ensure that all minority quotas are met. As to your point about labeling people as winners and losers, I believe I have a system to make use of these labels. You see, the problem lays not in the labels themselves, but rather, their culturally built-in positive and negative connotations. In order to change the mindset of the culture on this issue, I propose that instead of awarding 1 pt for a win, 0.5 for a draw, and 0 for a loss, we ought to award 1 pt each for a draw, 0.5 for a loss, and 0 for a win. By doing so, we retain the ability to negatively label those who adamantly refuse to adhere to the PC standard of non violence and therefore do not deserve the protections of PC, as well as encouraging peace diplomacy in the process. What say you?
@mewtwo204
With the greatest respect..you purport to champion the cause of PC,and yet you continue the barbaric practice of discriminating against what we like to call the "possibly less gifted in any given field but nonetheless keep searching for something you can occasionally win at"people.
Eliminate the elitist trait of rewarding those who happen to be marginally less unskilled with prizes of any kind.Give some empathetic thought to all the billions who currently are called "losers".They are not animals...they have hopes and aspirations..
The mere act of competing should be sufficient to ensure that everyone gets a medal.In fact,give even the non-competitors a bloody medal..
With the greatest respect..you purport to champion the cause of PC,and yet you continue the barbaric practice of discriminating against what we like to call the "possibly less gifted in any given field but nonetheless keep searching for something you can occasionally win at"people.
Eliminate the elitist trait of rewarding those who happen to be marginally less unskilled with prizes of any kind.Give some empathetic thought to all the billions who currently are called "losers".They are not animals...they have hopes and aspirations..
The mere act of competing should be sufficient to ensure that everyone gets a medal.In fact,give even the non-competitors a bloody medal..
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.