Are my points valid? Useless? Which ones do you agree on and which ones do you disagree on? Let's discuss! 👇😁

@user-jm1yv8zh1z

8 ай бұрын

Hello! I disagree with the second one - removing an passant.

@MeritedMasterOfTheUSSR

8 ай бұрын

your points are all garbage bro ngl

@cheettajr341

8 ай бұрын

For the 50 move rule being removed there are certain positions that nether player can make any moves except for king moves. So the only way the game can end is for a 3 fold or a players clock running out. It seems like a necessary rule to stop the players from just making infinite moves with literally no chance of the game not ending in a draw.

@MeritedMasterOfTheUSSR

8 ай бұрын

@@cheettajr341 exactly. Also if your playing someone who refuses to accept a draw, without the 50 move there is no way to actually stop the game

@yourfriendlyneighborhoodco8956

8 ай бұрын

I disagree with you removing En Passant

Stalemate in my opinion isn’t an useless rule. It makes player who’s losing to still calculating new moves so the game can be ended in a Draw. If stalemate rule weren’t exist, one player could just resign or play random moves since he knows he is going to lose, which makes the game felt boring. Player with advantage will also be extra careful with his moves.

@Admin-dv9yp

8 ай бұрын

Stalemate is an extremely useful rule. There are certain situations in with the player with less material stalemates the one with more. There is also the situation where you have 2 knights and can only give a stalemate and also the situation where there is a pawn on the a or h file with the king blocking it which ends in a stalemate

@saulgoodman1487

8 ай бұрын

Do you know you have rights, rights to move your king

@mehmetdogukoc8887

8 ай бұрын

Stalemate is trash

@insertnamehere2746

3 ай бұрын

​@@mehmetdogukoc8887 so stalemate is good only because it gives the losing player a buyout? Fuck that shit

Stalemate is actually very cool. It makes a winning side be careful and make the losing side a chance to win. It's really only affected 2 knights endgame. 50 moves rule is actually fine, it makes some knight vs 2 bishops endgame a draw which can help losing side a chance to draw, but you still must play like the only move which is pretty hard, but it doesn't affected the game that much so I didn't mind. It helps chess to not be too long.

50 move rule is necessary, otherwise in a dead position players will just make moves and it will become a contest of willpower and endurance instead of intelligence.

0:43 how did black’s bishop get to h8??

Ok the en passant is also a very good rule. It os there so that someone cannot that easily create a passed pawn. It makes perfect sense that you have a chance to stop it but only one

@rookmoves

8 ай бұрын

Yeah i mentioned that point, but i also mentioned my opinion around it

@mehmetdogukoc8887

8 ай бұрын

stop pass pawn with your skills and brain.dont add stupid rules,

@Admin-dv9yp

8 ай бұрын

@@mehmetdogukoc8887 this rule is older then anyone on planet Earth dude it's not new you 500

I think that a stalemate should count as a win but not a great one. It should give you half of the elo a win gives you.

Stalemate is the only reason one would ever promote to a rook or bishop instead of a queen.

0:43 it's still a mystery how the black's bishop end there

@rookmoves

7 ай бұрын

Its a mystery that will remain in the channel forever...

but stalemate is important because being given a win endgames like king and pawn vs king is kinda unfair considering you most likely didn't "dominate" your opponent. Also, gambits would be played less because being a pawn down becomes a lot more important because a stalemate would be a win.

I don't agree on the last one. I understand your point, but I think if a player can mate but doesn't know how, for example, if a beginner only has a rook and doesn't know how to mate with it, the game will continue until someone loses in time, which is boring.

En passant is very inportant becuse in lot of opening you can trap oponent piecese whit pawn but an passant is make things harder to trap in oppenings

en passant was made to make it harder to create passed pawn (and also probably to not invalidate all games made before the pawns can move 2 squares rule

@rookmoves

8 ай бұрын

Yeah i mentioned that point, but also mentioned how it could be a skill to create a passed pawn

@FrogInALog_

8 ай бұрын

although I do agree, I think the balenced nature of chess is good, if you loose a pawn, you should try to get it back and not just do some random crazy move@@rookmoves

I think stalemating should be a loss

5.4k views and only 130 likes. I don't think many I agree with you. I enjoy every rule you've mentioned and I think they serve a good purpose.

I Agree with @RookMoves Chess in rule touch move bc its so irritating 50 Move Rule is bad bc if there is no progress players can make draw

Without rules we live with the animals.

Instead of touch move rule there should be lift move rule. If a player completely lifts a piece it should play it. These moves are necessary otherwise player would keep lifting the piece and put them back to the same square, once in a while player could lift a piece and pretend to put it back but cleverly place on another square and then make a move thus playing 2 moves in 1 turn.

stalemate should be a draw, because checkmate was a a form to win because you had to capture the king in the original game, so if you checkmate any move you do would end up capturing the king, so it is a win, meanwhile stalemate doesnt, because the king isn't in check and doesn't have any other legal moves

7:36 GOTHAMCHESS

Bro you are contradicting yourself. You said you often times need more then 50 moves to position your pieces and then said that you never arive for the 50 move rule to be needed. It is needed otherwise to many engames would end by one player flagging the other in a compleetly drawing game

@rookmoves

8 ай бұрын

Well chess is a game with countless possibilities, so sometimes, you need 50 moves, but other times which is more often, you never reach them, there are multiple scenarios, thats what i mentioned

On behalf of the r/AnarchyChess community, you've become a second Jessica to us now. But seriously, good video!

@rookmoves

8 ай бұрын

Whos jessica 🤔

6:28 those are definitely the things i think about while playing chess

This guy spoke my mind,100% agree

en passant is simple and valid

stalemate is valid, if your dominating then checkmate the king, if your not able you deserve the draw

How about castling while the King is in check if possible?

@zanyskeleton5291

8 ай бұрын

No that would make castling too strong

@RGM39

8 ай бұрын

​@@zanyskeleton5291true

@RGM39

8 ай бұрын

My issue was casting through checks but casting is already pretty strong so with some nerfs it's kind balanced

*I like the stalemate, I'd be beating the crap out of my opponent with a massive piece advantage and thus let my guard down and end up accidentally stalemating them. Usually, this happens at the end game, but I like it. It hurts but it forces you to always keep your guard up until it's a real win or the fat lady has sung.*

@insertnamehere2746

3 ай бұрын

"Until it's a real win" It was literally a real win until they arbitrarily called it losing

@radicalrick9587

3 ай бұрын

@@insertnamehere2746 🤣 *My point was you have a massive advantage, got them cornered, and just go in for the easy kill, technically you've already won, and they can resign as most pro would, but then you make a really stupid error that allows them stalemate because all of a sudden they can't even make a move without putting themselves into check, since all their pieces are blocked and can't move, etc.. Getting a stalemate like this is worse than an outright loss because you did something so stupid that you want to kick the living crap out of yourself.* 🤣

1:22 '...the point of the game is to attack the king..." No. THE POINT IS TO CHECKMATE!!! (actually the point is to win. Checkmate, by resignation, by time or forfeit.)

@rookmoves

8 ай бұрын

How do you checkmate? By attacking the king...

@mickeyrube6623

8 ай бұрын

@@rookmoves Nope. If you attack the king, he can simply move to a legal square, block the attack, or you can take the attacking piece. If the point of the game was simple to attack the king, then players would simply just check each other over and over again.

@BlueSheep777

8 ай бұрын

checkmate means that king will be captured whenever he goes. So stalemate makes no sense since you force him to move in which you would "capture" the king.@@mickeyrube6623

Stalemate is great rule. That is like you remove check mate

I think en passent is a good move. But i dont like stalmate

@rookmoves

8 ай бұрын

Yeah for me stalemate is the worst

i disagree with everything in the video special moves make the game creative

@rookmoves

8 ай бұрын

Fair enough! thank you for watching the video anyways!

1:54💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀

@Admin-dv9yp

8 ай бұрын

I agree wtf do you mean it's useless. It happens in a lot a game and it's part of the rules like all the others.

I disagree on your stalemate objection.

@rookmoves

8 ай бұрын

What is your objection?

@lee-daniels

8 ай бұрын

@@rookmoves I feel it puts pressure to be cautious and graceful in the endgame

none of these should be removed and if you think otherwise you clearly dont know how to play chess

Mad cuz bad 😂😂😂

Chess has existed for over a millenia and many many experts playing the game understand why the rules have to be like they are. I just don’t see how you as a player that doesn’t even understand the game, say how some rules should be removed. Everything has a point. Stalemating by mistake doesn’t exist above the 2000 elo point at all, it even makes the game better when there is a position that the losing player can force a stalemate..

Saying stalemate is useless is probably the most braindead statement ive heard

Stalemate is useless I agree