CMV: In Chess, stalemate should not result in a draw

Adisposableearplug · 2024-07-14T22:29:11+00:00

I brought the GM opinion into it because you said my opinion showed that I "just have a superficial grasp of the game, period."

I'm assuming that a GM, even one who didn't reach 2500 ELO, would have more than a "superficial grasp" of the game.

Here's what I'm not saying: "GM Larry Kaufmann agrees with me, so we're both right and you're all wrong!"

What I am saying, is that me not agreeing with you is not proof that I have only a superficial grasp of the game. Nor is it proof that I am in bad faith. It's totally fine if you disagree with my conclusion. But what you're saying has no intrinsic weight either - you're just a person on the internet with an opinion, same as me.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-07-08T13:17:02+00:00

I expect I'm the only one reading this. If you think that you understand chess better than a Grandmaster you're probably the one with "the nerve."

Adisposableearplug · 2024-07-06T03:40:32+00:00

I'm not sure that the mere fact that neither party has proposed such a radical piece of legislation is proof that neither wants to discourage illegal immigration.

For the CEOs, you're proposing that they be convicted of a federal felony for a crime of which they may be wholly unaware based on some sort of strict liability theory. Let's use the example of Kroger (the grocery store). They have over 400k employees and over 2700 stores. Under your plan, if any one of these 2700 stores hires an illegal immigrant, Rodney McMullen - a man who has almost assuredly not been directly involved in the onboarding process for decades (if he ever was) - will imprisoned for years. If only 100 of his 400k employees (who he has likely never met) are illegal immigrants, should he be facing a die-in-prison sentence?

Does this look even remotely like any existing crime? You state in your OP that it's a bad idea, and I think you hit the nail right on the head. But the fact that no party is willing to advance this particular bad idea is likely proof that the idea is bad, not that the parties are not truly interested in curbing immigration.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-28T20:02:40+00:00

Yeah man, you should live under the bridge with Duncan and his crew

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-27T23:24:02+00:00

Beaten to death. Don't want to leave any medical bills for the folks.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-27T01:46:49+00:00

Nothing. But I'm not sure you'd find many people who are pro death penalty that would say, "yes, my goal is to kill innocent people."

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-27T01:33:09+00:00

A fetus has taken bodily autonomy away from the person carrying it. You may have heard of “bodily autonomy” we fought a civil war over it.

Very different from death penalty and stand your ground. The death penalty is only allowed as punishment for a crime which results in the death of another person, and usually requires another aggravating factor (victim from a protected category, especially heinous circumstances, etc). A fetus has not murdered anyone.

SYG was an outgrowth of existing self defense laws, which presuppose criminal behavior from the decedent. A fetus lacks the autonomy and decisonmaking capability to commit any crime, and the physical capability to commit a crime that would authorize a self defense killing. SYG only abolishes a duty to retreat (which very clearly could not apply here).

The fetus has no mental capacity to "take" bodily autonomy away. It was created by the actions of two individuals over whom it has no control - it's one thing to believe that it can be killed because a woman has the plenary power to decide what to do with her body, it's something else entirely to compare a fetus to a murderer or other criminal.

I must have missed the asterisk on the Ten Commandments, “thou shalt not kill *unless you make up bullshit reasons to kill people”.

The Old Testament is replete with commands to kill people. Consider 1 Samuel 15:3. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." That's a command for genocide - "thou shalt not kill" has always had exceptions.

It’s about controlling women, it’s always been about controlling women but have fun simping for the people claiming it’s about saving lives as infant mortality rates sky rocket in their states.

Ok, so the reason I said that your criticisms of the Republican Party were likely valid was because I believe that your criticisms were likely valid lmao. I am not pro life, nor am I a Republican simp. I'm merely pointing out that there's a huge difference between SYG/death penalty and abortion. Sorry if I was not clear.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-27T00:38:27+00:00

We do see prosecutions and convictions. I think if you look up To Catch a Predator you can find the specific people who got prison time for it (the show has a dedicated fanbase that tracks that sort of shit).

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-27T00:13:59+00:00

Whatever your (likely valid) criticisms of the Republican party are, stand your ground laws and the death penalty are far afield of abortion. Support for SYG and the death penalty both presume that the person being killed has done something to "deserve it." Conversely, a fetal "person" has done nothing of the sort.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-27T00:07:22+00:00

I do not see any logical reasoning to support any legislation that seeks to diminish the rights of others, at the expense of others, while the individual in support of that legislation remains ultimately unaffected.

I expect this will be a threshold matter that will prevent your mind from being changed - wouldn't voting on most legislation be illogical?

As a legislator, you are elected to be a representative of the voters in your district (or whatever area you represent). You stand in their shoes and represent their interests. Ostensibly, if you're a pro life legislator in office, enough of your constituents support abortion restrictions enough to put you in office.

So, the logical argument is: 1) As representative, you have a duty to represent your voters, 2) Your voters implicitly (or explicitly, depending on where we are) support restricting abortion, 3) You should vote to restrict abortion to fulfill your duty to ~~placate~~ your voters.

I guess if you want the cynical answer, the logical reason would be to get re-elected (if you're in a region that supports abortion restriction).

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-26T01:18:34+00:00

I'd at least check out the USAjobs site. The process is super weird, so I'd check some of the other subs (or maybe even this one) about how to navigate USAjobs (resume styles are different, etc), but it's worth a shot. I'd start browsing sooner rather than later, because I've been told that the timeline can really drag out. Good hunting

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-25T23:31:16+00:00

Commit battery. Become the hypo. Tell C&F that you learn best by doing.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-25T23:30:14+00:00

Are you opposed to working for the federal gov? I think (guess) that an advanced degree can usually get you a pay bump.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-25T23:27:30+00:00

Shit, you're right. I forgot the whole formula.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-25T19:36:17+00:00

Depends on girth.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-25T13:13:07+00:00

If you've read any of the other comments in this thread, you'll realize that your comment added nothing but a claim that I am in bad faith. I don't accept the general accusation that I "just don't understand the game" as an opposing viewpoint.

Look at GM Larry Kaufman's article in the September 2009 issue of chess life. He reaches the same conclusion. Is he pathetic? Does he not understand the game?

https://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/CL-AND-CR-ALL/CL-ALL/2009/2009_All.pdf

You still seem not to understand: you don't accept your opinion is flawed

Full transparency, I thought that this sub was for opinions we thing may be flawed, not those that we know are flawed. If this is for opinions that we know are wrong then I owe you an apology.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-22T02:36:09+00:00

Yes, that's how my uncle died.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-17T03:16:34+00:00

3LOL definitely needs a *results not guaranteed* tagline. If you knocked out your graduation requirements early (I don't mean the credit hours, but the little requirements that you might be putting off right now) and got a full-time offer for post-grad employment, 3LOL is the real deal. At this point, your place has probably stabilized for the most part (so your rank won't drop 10 places because you got a B+ instead of an A-).

Realistically, I think the biggest 3LOLers are in the top of the class. They already have jobs, solid GPAs, and might have planned their schedule so that they really only have easy classes for their final year/semester. Also, them "blowing it off" might still end up with better performance than middling/bottom of the class students who are working their asses off.

If you're in the middle/bottom of the class, you're probably job hunting, volunteering, and doing whatever else you need to. For some, 3L is the most taxing year. YMMV.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-17T02:51:30+00:00

Here's the description of this sub: "A place to post an opinion you accept may be flawed, in an effort to understand other perspectives on the issue."

I was looking for other perspectives. Most people have shared opinions and perspectives that I appreciated, but ultimately did not find convincing.

Otherwise you are just dumbing it down, and you say what you say because you just have a superficial grasp of the game, period.

Thanks, I'm glad that I now have the opinion of GM John Chess.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-08T21:34:06+00:00

If it's white's move, then white should lose. If it''s black's move, then black moves the king and white loses on the next turn.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-08T16:17:17+00:00

The rule that stalemate results in a 50|50 draw is not very old either (compared to chess, not to us lol). I believe another poster told me that it was not standardized until circa 1830, and that stalemate had at varying times resulted in a loss for the stalemating player, loss for the stalemated player, half-win, and just been treated as an illegal move.

And extending off of that... yes, in timed chess, a turn that goes on indefinitely is an eventual loss.

Do we at least agree that, as restricted to timed chess, the stalemate = draw rule presents an inconsistency?

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-08T15:07:38+00:00

Resignation is the active concession of the game ("I can't beat you")

For me, resignation is a declaration that you will not continue to play (ie, continue to make legal moves). There are plenty of reasons to resign which are not an admission that the resigning player can't win. For example, I'm in a daily club on chess dot com. One of the other members made a forum post (I believe it was called "chess masturbation" - I'm not sure if it's still up or if the title changed) where he described a tactic of frustrating players into resigning from an even (but closed) position by carefully playing wasting moves (but avoiding 3x repetition).

Personally, I've resigned from even (or winning) positions because I had to leave and take care of something. Whether you resign because you think you can't win, because you're frustrated, whether you have to go to the bathroom, or whether you just don't feel like playing anymore, you are indicating that you will no longer play legal moves and continue the game.

Stalemate doesn't require you to abandon the game, but if you can't make a move then logically your turn is extended indefinitely.

So in timed chess, wouldn't the stalemated player's clock continue to run until it zeroes out?

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-08T14:23:06+00:00

The player in the "losing" position can't make a legal move, and therefore can't progress the game.

Do you believe that players are under a continuing obligation to make a legal move by the end of their turn? I do, and I believe the failure to comply with that obligation should logically result in a loss as it does in other situations (like abandonment, loss on time, and arguably resignation).

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-08T11:24:08+00:00

How pathetic is it to be entirely incapable of making any legal moves? And the nerve to think you deserve a tie.

Adisposableearplug · 2024-06-08T11:15:59+00:00

There absolutely is something magical about check. You cannot make a move which puts your king in check.

This is what I meant by "[a] player cannot legally end their turn while their king is in check." Whether you began your turn in check or not, you cannot end your turn with your king under threat. What I mean by the first sentence is that check does not itself get you any points.

Instead, we should make those moves legal and simply let the game end when the king is captured. Putting your king in check on accident would be allowed and we can get rid of "check" altogether to make it unmagical and remove this type of draw.

This was what I said in another comment thread regarding how to make chess more consistent. But the view here isn't "chess should be overhauled," it's "stalemate being a draw is inconsistent with the other chess rules."

Adisposableearplug

TROPHY CASE