I was expecting a blog post regarding Iran strategy...
1D Chess
61–70 of 192 posts
Re: 1D Chess
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not very good at chess, but I dont get why most things are considered a stalemate? I strategically remove all pieces of the enemy, leaving only the king against my rook/tower whatever its called, the king has nowhere to run. In my eyes it's a checkmate. The game just calls it a stalemate. Would be a stalemate if I couldn't do anything, but I can kill the enemy king.
It's a stalemate because while the king can't move, he isn't under active attack. There is nowhere he can legally move, but he's safe where he's at.
But why? That feels like a victory.
Re: 1D Chess
#63If you enjoyed this, you might like Mind Chess, which can be played without a board and pieces [1]: Consider Mind Chess. Two players face each other. One says "Check." The other says "Check." The first says "Check." This continues until one of them says, instead, "Checkmate." That player wins -- superficially. In fact, the challenge is to put off checkmate for as long as possible, while still winning. This may be bet…
Which reminds me that I just lost the game.
I also lost the game not too long ago, but before that, I think I didn't actually lose it for a decade of more? And losing it wasn't even because it was mentioned anywhere, I genuinely just thought of it by myself, after forgetting about it for so long.
So my sincerest apologies if my comment just made any readers lose their long streak in the game.
Re: 1D Chess
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a stalemate because while the king can't move, he isn't under active attack. There is nowhere he can legally move, but he's safe where he's at.
But why? That feels like a victory.
Because that’s the rule. There doesn’t have to be a rational reason.
Re: 1D Chess
#65If you enjoyed this, you might like Mind Chess, which can be played without a board and pieces [1]: Consider Mind Chess. Two players face each other. One says "Check." The other says "Check." The first says "Check." This continues until one of them says, instead, "Checkmate." That player wins -- superficially. In fact, the challenge is to put off checkmate for as long as possible, while still winning. This may be bet…
Which reminds me that I just lost the game. I also lost the game not too long ago, but before that, I think I didn't actually lose it for a decade of more? And losing it wasn't even because it was mentioned anywhere, I genuinely just thought of it by myself, after forgetting about it for so long. So my sincerest apologies if my comment just made any readers lose their long streak in the game.
Damnit, I am pretty sure I had a few-year-streak going until just now. Welp, off to the grind again, I suppose.
Re: 1D Chess
#66If you enjoyed this, you might like Mind Chess, which can be played without a board and pieces [1]: Consider Mind Chess. Two players face each other. One says "Check." The other says "Check." The first says "Check." This continues until one of them says, instead, "Checkmate." That player wins -- superficially. In fact, the challenge is to put off checkmate for as long as possible, while still winning. This may be bet…
Which reminds me that I just lost the game. I also lost the game not too long ago, but before that, I think I didn't actually lose it for a decade of more? And losing it wasn't even because it was mentioned anywhere, I genuinely just thought of it by myself, after forgetting about it for so long. So my sincerest apologies if my comment just made any readers lose their long streak in the game.
I've lost it a lot lately, for some reason, after what I suppose was my third multi-year victory streak.
Like, five or so losses this year.
Re: 1D Chess
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why? That feels like a victory.
Because that’s the rule. There doesn’t have to be a rational reason.
... and if it weren't the rule, it'd make a lot of mid- and late-game play much safer for the player with the advantage. As it is, it's something they have to watch out for, which constrains them somewhat. You have to win, but not the wrong way, and your opponent can attempt to force you to "win" the "wrong way" (resulting in a stalemate).
Re: 1D Chess
#68I love chess! This version was fun too.
If 1. Rx6,it is stalemate. So it must be 1. N4 N5. Then we could proceed with, 2. Nx6+ K7. Now, if you capture the knight (Rxe), it is stalemate again. So sacrifice the knight, 3. R4 Kx6 so that you force black to zugzwang with 4. K2 K7, and finally, 5. Rx5#
Re: 1D Chess
#69If you enjoyed this, you might like Mind Chess, which can be played without a board and pieces [1]: Consider Mind Chess. Two players face each other. One says "Check." The other says "Check." The first says "Check." This continues until one of them says, instead, "Checkmate." That player wins -- superficially. In fact, the challenge is to put off checkmate for as long as possible, while still winning. This may be bet…
[deleted]
Re: 1D Chess
#70I was confused why 3.R2 is drawing, but not 3.R4 since black can check with the knight either way, but it's fairly obvious in hindsight - if black checks instead of capturing, you don't take, you go K2 and force black into zugzwang. Clever.