im not asking lichess or any chess site to change or do anything but the thing is illegal moves should be allowed in online if person does 2 illegal he/she loses in otb i think it should be same in online it'll be fun and everyone will lose in ultra or bullet bcuz illegal will be common how would it be? its actually better if it isnt like this but it sounds fun
In my opinion an illegal move should be an instant loss, but only in two cases.
1. When the king was pinned and the other guy didn't see it and moved the defender. Then his opponent can capture the king winning the game. There is a chess variant which works like this.
2. If he moved the king to an attacked square. Then the opponent just takes the king winning the game.
All other illegal moves should stay illegal, for example a knight can't go 1 square forward or a bishop can't go like a knight and so on, but it's not losing the game. You just can't make that move.
What do you think?
1. When the king was pinned and the other guy didn't see it and moved the defender. Then his opponent can capture the king winning the game. There is a chess variant which works like this.
2. If he moved the king to an attacked square. Then the opponent just takes the king winning the game.
All other illegal moves should stay illegal, for example a knight can't go 1 square forward or a bishop can't go like a knight and so on, but it's not losing the game. You just can't make that move.
What do you think?
@pointlesswindows said in #2:
> In my opinion an illegal move should be an instant loss, but only in two cases.
> 1. When the king was pinned and the other guy didn't see it and moved the defender. Then his opponent can capture the king winning the game. There is a chess variant which works like this.
> 2. If he moved the king to an attacked square. Then the opponent just takes the king winning the game.
>
> All other illegal moves should stay illegal, for example a knight can't go 1 square forward or a bishop can't go like a knight and so on, but it's not losing the game. You just can't make that move.
>
> What do you think?
I agree with you
> In my opinion an illegal move should be an instant loss, but only in two cases.
> 1. When the king was pinned and the other guy didn't see it and moved the defender. Then his opponent can capture the king winning the game. There is a chess variant which works like this.
> 2. If he moved the king to an attacked square. Then the opponent just takes the king winning the game.
>
> All other illegal moves should stay illegal, for example a knight can't go 1 square forward or a bishop can't go like a knight and so on, but it's not losing the game. You just can't make that move.
>
> What do you think?
I agree with you
@pointlesswindows said in #2:
> In my opinion an illegal move should be an instant loss, but only in two cases.
> 1. When the king was pinned and the other guy didn't see it and moved the defender. Then his opponent can capture the king winning the game. There is a chess variant which works like this.
> 2. If he moved the king to an attacked square. Then the opponent just takes the king winning the game.
>
> All other illegal moves should stay illegal, for example a knight can't go 1 square forward or a bishop can't go like a knight and so on, but it's not losing the game. You just can't make that move.
>
> What do you think?
So what you are suggesting is to change the game in a way that you can capture the king to win. I like it.
I would also remove stalemates. Game is already complicated enough, no need for a silly rule like that one. If you can not move your king because it is suronded by all sides then you should lose the game.
video about it:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqFykCZ4I34
> In my opinion an illegal move should be an instant loss, but only in two cases.
> 1. When the king was pinned and the other guy didn't see it and moved the defender. Then his opponent can capture the king winning the game. There is a chess variant which works like this.
> 2. If he moved the king to an attacked square. Then the opponent just takes the king winning the game.
>
> All other illegal moves should stay illegal, for example a knight can't go 1 square forward or a bishop can't go like a knight and so on, but it's not losing the game. You just can't make that move.
>
> What do you think?
So what you are suggesting is to change the game in a way that you can capture the king to win. I like it.
I would also remove stalemates. Game is already complicated enough, no need for a silly rule like that one. If you can not move your king because it is suronded by all sides then you should lose the game.
video about it:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqFykCZ4I34
@GambitQA said in #4:
> So what you are suggesting is to change the game in a way that you can capture the king to win. I like it.
>
> I would also remove stalemates. Game is already complicated enough, no need for a silly rule like that one. If you can not move your king because it is suronded by all sides then you should lose the game.
Yes
> So what you are suggesting is to change the game in a way that you can capture the king to win. I like it.
>
> I would also remove stalemates. Game is already complicated enough, no need for a silly rule like that one. If you can not move your king because it is suronded by all sides then you should lose the game.
Yes
"... to have more decisive games..." lol people, no way, reasoning is almost logic, but a total failure. What You want is to change the RULES of that particular game. Of course You can, so it's made 960, Seirawan chess, and who knows what else we can invent. Stalemate is a beautiful rule, which should remain, as it gives a lesson not to relax until the very end. Until it's really the end, either checkmate or resignation by opponent. It is also the last hope for side, which is losing. It's just really important part of modern chess, making it beautiful fight over the board until very end.
It would be better, in order to have "more decisive games" actually IMPROVE Your chess skills, so You won't stalemate someone in a winning setup... I know learning need some character and stubborness, but it's just better rather than oh let's make the rule disappear, because it's irritating to think about all those stalemate possibilities lol yeah public wants those decisive points...
Many times I suggested to not give 0.5pt for a draw, which is the ridiculous thing (just way way way too generous). Imagine tournament where only wins count, that would be wild and dynamic action on boards. That would definitely increase not only more decisive plays, but also agressive, dynamic, sacrifices, position mess ups and so on - what people wants to see a lot.
It would be better, in order to have "more decisive games" actually IMPROVE Your chess skills, so You won't stalemate someone in a winning setup... I know learning need some character and stubborness, but it's just better rather than oh let's make the rule disappear, because it's irritating to think about all those stalemate possibilities lol yeah public wants those decisive points...
Many times I suggested to not give 0.5pt for a draw, which is the ridiculous thing (just way way way too generous). Imagine tournament where only wins count, that would be wild and dynamic action on boards. That would definitely increase not only more decisive plays, but also agressive, dynamic, sacrifices, position mess ups and so on - what people wants to see a lot.
@TrainingOTB said in #6:
> "... to have more decisive games..." lol people, no way, reasoning is almost logic, but a total failure. What You want is to change the RULES of that particular game. Of course You can, so it's made 960, Seirawan chess, and who knows what else we can invent. Stalemate is a beautiful rule, which should remain, as it gives a lesson not to relax until the very end. Until it's really the end, either checkmate or resignation by opponent. It is also the last hope for side, which is losing. It's just really important part of modern chess, making it beautiful fight over the board until very end.
> It would be better, in order to have "more decisive games" actually IMPROVE Your chess skills, so You won't stalemate someone in a winning setup... I know learning need some character and stubborness, but it's just better rather than oh let's make the rule disappear, because it's irritating to think about all those stalemate possibilities lol yeah public wants those decisive points...
> Many times I suggested to not give 0.5pt for a draw, which is the ridiculous thing (just way way way too generous). Imagine tournament where only wins count, that would be wild and dynamic action on boards. That would definitely increase not only more decisive plays, but also agressive, dynamic, sacrifices, position mess ups and so on - what people wants to see a lot.
You are making zero sense .
> "... to have more decisive games..." lol people, no way, reasoning is almost logic, but a total failure. What You want is to change the RULES of that particular game. Of course You can, so it's made 960, Seirawan chess, and who knows what else we can invent. Stalemate is a beautiful rule, which should remain, as it gives a lesson not to relax until the very end. Until it's really the end, either checkmate or resignation by opponent. It is also the last hope for side, which is losing. It's just really important part of modern chess, making it beautiful fight over the board until very end.
> It would be better, in order to have "more decisive games" actually IMPROVE Your chess skills, so You won't stalemate someone in a winning setup... I know learning need some character and stubborness, but it's just better rather than oh let's make the rule disappear, because it's irritating to think about all those stalemate possibilities lol yeah public wants those decisive points...
> Many times I suggested to not give 0.5pt for a draw, which is the ridiculous thing (just way way way too generous). Imagine tournament where only wins count, that would be wild and dynamic action on boards. That would definitely increase not only more decisive plays, but also agressive, dynamic, sacrifices, position mess ups and so on - what people wants to see a lot.
You are making zero sense .
lol @GambitQA ... your account makes zero sense, you created it to blah blah in forums and not to play chess on the chess website... zeeeroooo
@TrainingOTB said in #8:
> lol @GambitQA ... your account makes zero sense, you created it to blah blah in forums and not to play chess on the chess website... zeeeroooo
Stick to the topic.
> lol @GambitQA ... your account makes zero sense, you created it to blah blah in forums and not to play chess on the chess website... zeeeroooo
Stick to the topic.
@GambitQA said in #9:
> Stick to the topic.
@TrainingOTB - Please don't write things like that to anyone. Moderaters can find out easily.
Thank you for understanding
> Stick to the topic.
@TrainingOTB - Please don't write things like that to anyone. Moderaters can find out easily.
Thank you for understanding
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.