Talk:Chess

Is there any reason (except being dull) why aren't the rules of Chess listed? 195.70.52.200 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Because people like you are too lazy to write about them, but not lazy enough to not whine about them not being there.

Just as I expected :). Okay, done. It's just that I'm a newfag and the article text looked like it was left out to be short or something like that.

Oh, and not "people like me"...

Also, if anyone else thinks that this is enough, remove the stub tag please. 195.70.52.200 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Days passed, no answer. I guess people are too lazy to apologise but not lazy enough to not accuse people being lazy... 195.70.52.200 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I for one don't see the article being locked from editing, or any of us having more rights than the others. If you feel some change to be worthwhile - go for it instead of mourning that no one has already done it on the talk page. Fatum 03:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I asked if it's OK and 216.*.*.* instantly (=not even an hour later) started flinging accusations at me. I did go for it - the rules are in the Chess page now. I just don't like being called lazy when my (approximatly) 100 lines (of now (approx. again) 106) of my work are waiting on the clipboard for the go-ahead. 195.70.52.200 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop being so damned whiney, It was the way your question was asked that forced the type of response that was made.--Anonykota 23:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. You ask if there's a reason for the rules not to be there, and get answered that the reason for that is that we have a bunch of people to discuss things and no one to really write them. Ok, you go and write some ONE HUNDRED LINES OH MY GOSH, what are you, expecting the man to ask for excuses or something now? Fatum 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think I'm misunderstood. I ask if there's a reason for the rules not to be there, and for this innocent question I get answered that the reason for that is I'm lazy, only whine and complain and why am I here anyway. Yes, I was expecting a "sorry".

Also, continuing this seems pretty pointless, I think both of us made our points. 195.70.52.200 00:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'll add the final thing if not for you, then for future readers: doing things for community and expecting any kind of gratitude is naive at best. And taking offense at some anonymous stranger calling you a slacker before you even do anything won't make you any good, either, other than taking away any wish to do anything ever. Fatum 01:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry about ruining your "final thing".) Okay, almost 2 weeks have passed and I gave a lot of thought about this. It's all my fault. I only tried not being a troll. This won't happen again, I promise.195.70.52.200 20:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Man, you are taking it all far too seriously. This is goddamn Internet, relax and have fun already. Fatum 21:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Fuck fun, who needs fun? - Hueqort

Clearly, the reason that the king is important and yet useless at once is because he's Failbaddon the Armless.

Anyone know who makes those awesome chess pieces? Munch munch 23:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

But Seriously...

What is all this about a brutality rule? Seems very local or made-up. Never heard of it, have played in tournaments and learned from tournament players (not particularly high ranked, but they have a rating). The term capture has been in use for a couple hundred years at least as far as I know and all the talk about not talking about killing because of kids- huh? Lazarus Plus (talk)

Well the whole article is really quite terrible since it is so focused for some reason (writer's predilection most likely) on 4e comparisons and the 'joke' that Chess ripped it off. Weirdness. Might try to re-write rules section to make it kind of entertaining without being totally exclusionary to people who (gasp!) don't really give a shit about 4e or d&d generally and wanted to see what the article said about the actual game in the title. (Who would want that? Randomness ftwlolololowtfbbq etc.)Lazarus Plus (talk)

It was funny for the three-five years that D&D4E & World of Warcraft were topical. Maybe it's outdated now. And what on Earth makes you think a serious Chess player would approach 4chan for questions about how to play the game of kings? --NotBrandX (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions about how to play, no. Wondering what the article might say, given the orientation of the site, yes. It all wraps back towards d&d though instead of talking about it and other board games, which this site also covers...Lazarus Plus (talk)

The joke is that brutality refers to Mortal Kombat finishing moves, and this is our nickname for saying you cannot intentionally expose your king to a check.

I guessed that was the connection, but who has this nickname for it? Is this supposed to be widespread? Seems unlikely.Lazarus Plus (talk)

The icons/illustrations for the pieces

Literally every person I've met, aside from three kids who argued with me over this at a family reunion, and all of the programs I've ever played have had the King and Queen reversed from what they are in this article. I.E., short dude with a spiky crown is the King while the tallest piece on the board (often from a big cross sticking out the top) is the Queen. How does something like this happen? Nathan the Mouse (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Stupidity. What else do you think would be the reason?--Newerfag (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The king is the tall piece with the cross. The queen has the crown. How is that not the case?--97.103.154.125 07:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)