[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Rules of Chess FAQ. Frequently asked chess questions.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Is there a rule that states that if you put your opponent into check in a certain number of times in a row that it is a stalemate?
That's a Draw in OrthoChess of FIDE, as Stalemate. In Shatranj (600-1500) not only is that a win, so is even Bare King. In chess variations as artwork it depends on the CV. Usually that would be Draw. The principle forces focus on handling of pieces and Pawns vis-a-vis King, rather than raw power.
lets say there was just a kink left and the very last move of the game put it in checkmate,would that be a win,or seeing as there is no other move to actually take the king,would you still be able to consider the king safe and call it a draw?
Yes, promoted pawns can be immediately captured after promotion. The opponent is not required to wait. See the Pawn FAQ page for more details on the question 'Can promoted pieces be captured directly after promotion?'.
when you get your pawn to the other side of the board but it was also in a capture possition (from the other player) can the other player capture it or does he have to wait untill his next turn?
can a king kill a king?
can a pawn turn into a queen and put you into check mate to end the game or must it be done differently
for assessing the strength of the position of the players in a game,the values of the chess pieces may also be shown in the frequently asked questions. thanking you, kswarrier
There is no rule that a king must be checked before it is checkmated. In fact, 'no check without mate' is one special condition that is sometimes used to handicap a stronger player in friendly games.
is it allowed for a king to be checkmated without going through check first? ie. the king is on the last row of the board nearest to the edge. the king is on a square right next to a square that the queen could move to diagonally. a rook is then placed on the same row as the king which is checkmate. Then the king can only move two places to get out of check which is the square within the queen's capture and one square towards the rook.the king can only move to these two places as the other squares are engaged. also none of the oppenents players can kill the rook or queen is this example of checkmate still valid? plese reply by putting the question and answer on FAQ as soon as possible thank you
QUOTE: 'i have played a computer program that says that moving the king into a square without having that square accessible by a piece of yours is illegal. is this true?'
Not true - does not even make sense. How would you play an endgame with only Kings and Pawns left on the board?
i have played a computer program that says that moving the king into a square without having that square accessible by a piece of yours is illegal. is this true?
bsjh wrote on Sat, Oct 20, 2007 01:25 AM UTC:Good ★★★★oipdfibrnui
Sure you can, Michael; there are games on record with five queens on the board at once.
when a pawn reachs the end can it turn into a queen. If i already have one .
Cindy: the Black Queen cannot move since that would expose the Black King to check, which is not allowed. This is a very useful tactic.
The answers were very informative. I have a question on checking. If, let's say, a black king and a white rook are both on the same row and a black queen stands in between the two, can the queen be moved? And if the queen is moved, could the white rook take the black king and win the game? (Is there such a thing as an indirect check?) thank you
'Does it have to go where the pawn goes?'
The new queen, rook, knight, or bishop (of the same color) must be placed on the pawn promotion square. See the Rules of Chess: Pawns FAQ.
Hello, I thought that when a pawn moves to the other side it can get its queen back. But I thought the queen goes to a neutral position? Does it have to go where the pawn goes? Thanks, Monte
The goal of chess is checkmating the king, not capturing all the opponent's pieces. You are allowed to capture any and all pieces other than the king which must be checkmated.
Can you take the last peice or pawn on the oppenents side, or are we unable to?
Your opponent cannot make an illegal move (KING CAPTURE) in reply to your illegal move. [EDIT] See the 'What happens if you make a move that leaves your king accidentally in check?' section of Rules of Chess: Kings and check.
If i made illegal move that left my king exposed and it went unnoticed till the near end of game.The opponent now claimed to take my king as it was his chance. Is this right? I need a solution of this. Please do reply.
Marzy: nothing changes when your King reaches the eighth rank. Only Pawns promote.
When your king reaches the other side if the board what happenends? Do you get another piece just like when a pawn reaches the other side.
I think there are two possiblities. 1)Your program has bug. 2)The queen you are going to take is protected. King cannot take a protected piece, of course. I am sure king can take queen.
My question is can a king capture the queen when the queen puts the king in check? What if that's the only way out of check? I was playing my computer and the king took my queen when she put my king in check. My computer or the game I downloaded wouldn't let my king do the same thing. It might not have been the only way out of check that time.
Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Dec 24, 2006 04:05 AM UTC:You cannot castle if you are in check. You also cannot castle into check, or through check (that is, you cannot move through any square that is attacked by your opponent.)
HI,i was playing chess online and the knight was checkinh me. i tried everything and the last try i did a kingside castle. is this an error? or people can really castle in check?
In standard chess, it is indeed possible to capture the piece that is checking. Escape by fleeing is not the only option. Interposition of another piece is a third option in some cases, but not when attacked by a knight, the only jumping piece.
I recommend this excellent beginner's book for a review of some of the different ways one can check and extricate oneself from check.
An aside: There is a chess variant called Wuss featuring a piece that always must flee - can only flee - when attacked. You might try it out some time. It is very interesting.
When your king is in check, is it possible to take the opponent's attacking piece with a different piece of yours, or must you only use your king to escape?
It stays where the pawn reached the promotion-rank. That is, it stays until your next turn, at least.
OVERALL GOOD INFORMATION BUT EXAMPLES COULD BE BETTER. I HAVE A QUESTION WHEN YOU GET YOUR PAWN ACROSS THE BOARD AND YOU RETRIEVE A PIECE DOES THE PIECE YOU RETRIEVE GO TO IT'S ORIGINAL POSITION OR DOES IT STAY IN THE SPOT THAT THE PAWN REACHED THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BOARD?
I am in China and sometimes play international chess and sometimes Chinese Chess. It is very helpful to help my new relatives play international chess by showing them rules on the computer.
In reply to this question: Can a king moved to square that is attacked by a pinned piece? Answer: No. In further response to the example given, i.e: White has a knight pinned by a bishop ... [is] black allowed to move [his King] to a square attacked by the knight? Answer: No. A king cannot move into check, even if the checking piece is pinned. An easy way to see why this makes sense is this: If that King could expose itself to check, then so could the other King. And if that were the case White could simply play N x K.
In case no one has pointed this out already, in the following example: Can a king moved to square that is attacked by a pinned piece? On the chessboard, there is the following situation. One player, say white, has a knight, that is `pinned' by a bishop of the opponent, i.e., the knight is between the black bishop and the white king, so if the knight would move, then the king is checked. Is in this situation black allowed to move to a square attacked by the knight? The piece on A6 is a rook (or castle) vice bishop as stated. Other than that, I found this site quite informative and helpful. ReggJ.
Anonymous wrote on Sun, May 28, 2006 07:00 AM UTC:can a player leave the table while his oponent has to move if a clock doesnt exist?
Help! Our chess club has a crystal set and we want to know which is white and which is black. One side is frosted, the other plain glass. Thank you --Mrs. F. Club Sponsor
dj,
See the answer to next-to-last question on this page. You don't automatically win if your opponent falsely claims checkmate.
See the answer to next-to-last question on this page. You don't automatically win if your opponent falsely claims checkmate.
Whap happens when a player says a false checkmate? Do i win?
oops my mistake, i thought black bishop was on f3, sorry. oh well, that position is a total draw.
How can Black move Bf3xe2+ when he only has a Bishop on c3?
the unusual question by doug was 'how can i check the white king' he he, which is unusual because the goal of chess is checkmate, not checking the king. check's mean nothing really if the king being checked can easily move out of the way or block the check. still, asking how can i check the white king, indicates that black has the move, he he, and if this is so, black can check straight away, playing bishop takes bishop, check, and this move also wins on the spot. a very interesting chess problem despite it's easiness lol :)
yes but if it is black's move, black wins with Bf3xe2.
Doug, this endgame is a textbook draw. The White Bishop can simply move back and forth between e2 and a6.
If I play black, how can I check white's King if WK is on F1, WBishop is on E2, and BK is on G3, BPawn F2 and BBishop on C3?
barb wrote on Wed, Mar 22, 2006 11:19 PM UTC:Good ★★★★is there anything you can do when two pawns come head to head...or are they just stuck there? email me at [email protected] subject: pawn thanks, barb
'Baring the king' (as it is traditionally called) does not end the game in standard Western chess--the player with the lone king cannot actually win (since there's no way to give mate with just a king), but can still lose or draw. If both kings are bared, of course, the game is a draw.
I was playing someone and he said if he killed all my pieces accept my King it was a draw is this true
Hello, I saw Laura's previous question on 'can a king put another king into check'. I also saw that your answer was a difinitive 'no.' My question is still the same, just a little different. When I was young growing up in the 80's and 90's I played this computer game 'Battle Chess' which I'm sure you may be aware of. In this game, it was possible to put a king into checkmate (and only checkmate) with another king but only under certain circumstaces, but i forget what the condition was (perhaps when only protected by a pawn?) I have no clue, but I KNOW (or at least think) that there's some way to put king in checkmate with king.. Is this an obscure rule? or something weird in the game?
laura,
That's the second question on the Rules of Chess FAQ page. Here's the answer:
Can kings check other kings? No. A king may not move to a square next to another king, because then this move would put the king that moves also into check, which is illegal.It is possible to make a move with a king such that the other king is checked (or even mated): suppose that whites king is between whites rook and blacks king on one line. When the king moves away from the line, he discloses the check by the rook.
Can a king check a king?
I am playing my brother in chess and he calls out check mate. I make sure and see that is only actually a check, because I could move my queen down to protect my king. Does this mean he loses the game?
The rule is called 'en passant.' It is French for 'in passing.' See the 'En passant capture FAQ' listed above.
un pas un is there such a rule? this is where a pawn is next to the opponent's pawn and you can take it Please explain
Thanks this solves arguments between my chess playing students.
I work at a correctional facility, and one of the things the inmates enjoy for passing time is to play chess, but we have never had a place for actually seeing rules. I told the inamtes I would check the internet for an answer to a question about having more than one Queen. I was very thankful to find the exact answer in your 'frequently asked questions' area...thanks to you from me and the inmates.
My son plays chess at school, and some of his opponents are playing under the misapprehansion that three checks in a row is a draw. Can you please add the question and answer for 'does three checks in a row mean a draw?' to the website so we can prove to them that they are wrong?
Greg has already correctly answered Jason's question, but I want to add a comment on the matters that were confusing Jason. Yes, it is true that one King may never check or capture another King, but this is true only as a consequence of the rules, not as a rule itself. The relevant rules are that neighboring Kings are in check from each other, and a King may never move into check. It follows from these two rules that one King may never move next to another, and that is what stops one King from checking or capturing another. In other words, Kings have the ability to check each other, but the possession of this ability keeps them from ever having the opportunity to use it. The statement that Kings may never check each other is true from an absence of opportunity, not from an absence of ability.
Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Jul 23, 2005 12:42 AM UTC:Yes, that move is illegal. You can never, under any circumstances, move your king next to the other king. You can never place your king in a position where it is attacked by any enemy piece.
is this move legal or illegal. i was playing my cousin, it was my turn to move. his horse(knight) was between my king and his king. i moved my king up once space to take his horse which left my king and his king adjacent to each other. is that placing my own king in check? because someone told me that a king cannot capture another king or that a king cannot be checked by another king. please help me.
<blockquote><i>
Can you castle at any point in a game after you have been placed in check?
</i></blockquote>
Yes, you may. See the <a href='../d.chess/castlefaq.html'>Castling FAQ</a>. The rule your friend told you is a common variation of the rules, but is not part of the standard rules of Chess.
Can you castle at any point in a game after you have been placed in check? I was playing with a friend and earlier in the game he had placed me in check, so later on when I went to castle he said that I could not because I was place in check once earlier in the game. Is this true or false?
Except, I think, in an 'official' chess tournament, where I'm told that announcing check is considered rude by some.
Announcing check is not required but merely polite. See the <a href=' http://www.chessvariants.org/d.chess/matefaq.html'>mate, checkmate, and stalemate FAQ page</a>.
When you place someone in check is it 'mandatory' to announce it?
This was perfect for resolving arguments in a tornement. Thanks alot you did a really good job on this and i'm sure it will help alot of people in the future or chess. Is the move ' the great wall ' (lining up all pawns on the middle line to prevent your oponent from getting near your peaces,) legall???
these questions are very repetitive
This is an ecxellent page for people who have a question
Sorry, I got a2 confused with b2. The King is not in check at a2, and so moving there is legal.
If this is the square you're proposing the white King to move to, I don't see how the move puts him in check. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][p][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] Caps are black, lowercase are white [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][P] [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] [p][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] [k][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][K][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
No, it is not legal. A King may never move into check.
I have a question about a chess move, here is a diagramm of the board: [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][p][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] Caps are black, lowercase are white [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][P] [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] [p][k][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][K][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] I am black, my opponent moves his king to A2, is this legal or not?
I have a couple questions concerning the three-fold repetition rule. The official FIDE version of the rule is: The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by sequential repetition of moves) (a) is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or (b) has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move. Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently. My questions are on the last sentence. Consider this position: W: Kc1 Nh1 Pc5 B: Kb8 Rc8 Nh8 Pd5 Black has just moved ...d5. The knights are then shuffled around, resulting in the position repeating two more times. However, the rule says that 'positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured.' In this case, the pawn cannot be captured en passant in any of the three positions (the white pawn is pinned). Are all three positions considered the same, even though the right to capture the pawn en passant would have changed in the absence of the pin? My second question is about the 'right to castle' provision. Consider this position: W: Ke1 Ra1 Nb5 B: Kh4 Bf8 Suppose white's king and rook have not moved. The knight and bishop move around, resulting in the position repeating two more times. However, in doing so, the bishop checks the white king and is blocked by the knight. Since the right to castle has been changed temporarily, are all three positions the same? Also, from that position, suppose that instead of white being checked, white moves her knight between the king and rook. Since this temporarily changes the right to castle, are all the positions the same? Consider this position: W: Ke1 Rh1 Bb2 B: Ka8 Ra7 From here, it is impossible for white to ever castle, even if his king and rook have not moved. Does it make a difference here if the right to castle is changed temporarily (e.g. the black rook checks the white king and is blocked by the bishop)?
A Bet loser wrote on Fri, Jun 25, 2004 11:37 PM UTC:Poor ★Because I had a bet and I lost lol
Let me reiterate and add to what Michael Nelson has said. The Web is full of forums on nearly any conceivable topic you can think of. If you want to discuss subjects unrelated to this site, go to the appropriate site and discuss them there. This site's comment areas are for discussions of Chess variants and for comments specific to the contents of individual pages. It is not for general discussion of any and every topic. Let me add that some forums on the web have become cesspools of trolling, baiting, flaming, and other nonsense. This site is an oasis of reasonable, peaceful discussion, and that is mainly because we limit our discussions to Chess variants and closely related subjects. If we started discussing controversial subjects here, this site could turn into a place of factions, fighting, and hostility. But that's not what this site is about. It is about bringing together people who share a common interest in a mutual spirit of good will and friendship. Let's keep it that way. With that said, I'll add that there is nothing wrong, per se, with discussing controversial subjects. If you want to discuss such issues, feel free to go to a forum where they are being discussed. My main concern is that doing it here would get in the way of what this site is really all about. The ozone layer and Walmart may not seem like such controversial subjects, but inviting discussion of them here would open the door to even more controversial subjects.
Ryan, This is not the proper forum for the discussion of ozone depletion, Walmart, Bush vs Kerry, Iraq, The Passion of the Christ, etc., etc., etc. If you are not discussing Chess variants or very closely related topics, please post to an appropiate forum for those topics and not here.
Im meant how it is depleating do any of you guys care and another question do you like walmart
This is not the place for asking about the ozone layer. Try an online encyclopedia.
Ryan, if your rating was asigned by a computer test, that is good, and you must be encouraged to participate in Tournements. If this is not the case, I agree with Michael Howe and you must moderate the inflation of your ego by not valid methods, or you may have some troubles in the future, and I´m trying to say this to you as a father, or as a friend. But the real importance of Chess to your life is not a rating. If you play Chess or any of its Variants, the knowledge involved is much more important: You can learn that every step you do in the life must be measured and calculated, trying to minimize errors. Chess seem to have some influence in the way you attack problems, too. You can lose a game, you can lose many games, but nothing of it is really important. The important is the path you are walking. Chess can be enjoyed equally winning or losing a game. It is a game, it is not life. Chess is one of the great entertainements you can find in life, like football, like baseball, but the learning of Chess can be more important to you than the learnings you can aquire from other sports. At least, I think that.
Best player against programs?. It seems the best score is for Viswanathan Anand. ELO is a comparative measure, but it is not always indicative of a result. Players with ELO around 1800-2100 can have more or less similar forces and any one can beat another in a single game, but the difference can be observed playing a lot of games. At the highest level, the differences are notorious between, say, a player with ELO 2600 and a player with ELO 2700. Nevertheless, at the top level, you can observe that Anand tendence is to be beated by Kasparov, Kramnik seems to be very uncomfortable for Kasparov and the tendence is in favor of Kramnik, and Anand tendence is to beat Kramnik!. Many times, all of them beat the dame Polgar without great difficulty, although Judith is very difficult to be beated by another player. Styles matter, I think.
FIDE database is not complete, but one can find information about top federated players of many countries. Local databases should be useful for finding some more information about players, nevertheless, many active players information is not available. The top FIDE-Chess player in the world is still G.M. Garry Kasparov, ELO 2817, followed by G.M. Viswanathan Anand, from India, with ELO 2774, and G.M. Wladimir Kramnik, from Russia, ELO 2764. The top woman is G.M. Judith Polgar, from Hungary, with ELO 2728, the 9th. top ELO in the world. The top sub-14 years old player is G.M. Sergey Karjakin (14 y.o.), from Ukraine, ELO 2580. There are around 40 Grand-Masters is USA, Alexander Onischuk in the top with 2652, and the top USA junior ELO belongs to G.M. Hikaru Nakamura, 16 y.o player with japanese ancestors, his 2580 rating is much more than any Japanese player (In FIDE-Chess, of course. If we talk about Shogi, other is the case). The top 8 countries (average of top 100 players) are, in this order: Russia, Ukraine, England, Hungary, France, USA, Germany and Israel. Computer programs ELO?: there are some programs with a hight G.M. level, but it is not usual a measure in this case, programs play Chess with advantage, many of them have access to extensive databases of games, openings and ends, so they are not 'honest' playing Chess!
Ryan: Your last comment said a lot. Without an ID number you can not play in Official Tournaments, and cannot have an official chess rating. I am dissapointed... but as I thought, the 2317 rating only seems to exist in your own mind.
I don't tell many people so nobody realy knows. I never told any record detorial so I do not have a id number
With 2317 (I suppose FIDE ELO), Ryan should be one of the strongest 10 years old players in the world, if not the highest ELO rating for people of his age. If this is your ELO rating, you must continue with chess. It is very possible you are going to become a Grand-Master very soon. Good luck. As for me, my FIDE ELO is around 1950, average-to-low class-A FIDE-Chess player (there are some 'oficially stronger' FIDE-Chess players that are frequent users of this Pages, and many others that are certainly very strong not-rated players). I don´t know how we can rate Chess Variants players. Some ratings and the way for calculate it have been stablished for Shogi or Xiang-Qi, and I think also for Glinsky, but it should be difficult to rate the players of many variants, fundamentally because we need a lot of 'federated' players for taking a good comparative rating, frequent Tournements, etc.
Perhaps the number mentioned is the rating assigned by a computer opponent that evaluates the player, achieved without playing in tournaments against human beings? If so, I'd recommend along with Gary Gifford that the player take part in a tournament at his earliest convenience. News of a chess prodigy would help to promote the game. And I don't think it would be at all bad for the youngster's chess career to come forth and be recognized at that point.
Ryan, you should still be listed on the official USCF ratings list. And to reach a 2317 rating you would not be able to 'keep low.' Thus your Bobbby Fischer like level of play is most baffling to me... and I still remain skeptical. Your USCF ID number could validate what you say... do you even have a USCF ID number? If you are indeed close to the highest rated 10 year old on the planet... then I really want Chess Life to do a story on it, and they'd love to. I would like to be shown to be wrong, but I think this 2317 rating story is no more than National Enquirer material. Please provide the ID number by e-mail to me so I can proove myself wrong. Thanks. Sincerely, Gary [really hoping that I am wrong]
I keap low to come from nowhere. and 2500 is a grandmaster not 2400
A 2317 rating... impressive, but I am very skeptical. In a recent comment Ryan Goebel stated 'I have benn [sic] wondering how good other people are please tell me your rating mine is 2317 and i am 10 years old.' That is very impressive, approaching a youthful Bobby Fischer status (perhaps already there). But when I searched the official rating lists I found no Ryan Goebel listed. There was another Goebel in the age 6 to 12 group. But he was rated 534 (far below the norm). The highest Goebel I found was rated 1530 (which is about the average rating of USCF tournament players). Ryan, if you want, please send your USCF ID number so I can verify your youthful Fischer-like strength... if it is a real thing, I want to know about it. But for now I must remain skeptical. As for me, my rating is only about 1830. That is a Class 'A' player... the next level up (2000) is Expert (the Brits call it 'Candidate Master' which is a nicer title. At 2200 we have Master. At 2400 we have Grand Master. Ryan, if you are 2317 at age 10, I want to read about you in the Chess Life magazine. I hope you can shatter my skepticism. We could use another Bobby Fischer (chess talent wise, not personality wise).
Excellently put Fergus, Ryan, I'm an average player of 1500 to 1600. My current rating is a 1400 @U.S. Chess Live. Just like Fergus, I except chess as a whole, not a separated piece. When I play, I tend to practice out theories from other styles. As you can see my theories haven't worked for me. It's nice to see another open minded person join our group.
I am unrated. I play Chess infrequently, and I'm not part of the Chess club or Chess tournament scene. What I do play frequently are Chess variants, games that are similar to but not identical to Chess. I'm pleased that your interest in Chess brought you to this site, but Chess is not what this site is really all about. Its main topic is Chess variants, and it is a broad interest in a wide variety of games, not a specific interest in Chess, that keeps most of the regulars coming back to this site. Few Chess variants have any rating system developed for them, and there is no generic rating system for Chess variants in general. Given the absence of any other responses to your question, and given the focus of this site, I would expect that most people here are also unrated. Anyway, Chess variants are a lot of fun. Please explore the rest of this site and learn about the iceberg that Chess is only the tip of.
if you read this message the please post. I have benn wondering how good other people are please tell me your rating mine is 2317 and i am 10 years old
Orthodox (Mad Queen) design analysis: # squares: 64 # piece types: 6 Initial piece density: 50% Piece values: P1, N3, B3, R5, Q9 Power density: 1.22 Exchange Gradient: 0.50 Ave. Game Length: #M = (3.5*6)/(1.22*0.5) = 34 moves
For the definition of clique, follow this link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=clique Anyway, what you're telling me is that the words nerd and geek have no objective meaning, and certain people are simply using these words to make fun of other people. In that case, no one who plays Chess is truly a nerd or a geek in any important objective sense. They are just meaningless names used by some people to bully others into being more like them. What matters most is that you remain true to yourself. If you enjoy Chess, continue to play it and don't worry what others will label you for it. The truth about many kids is that they are just looking for any excuse to pick on other kids. If some kid doesn't play Chess, he might choose to pick on you for playing Chess. But if you didn't play Chess, he might choose to pick on you for something else. The main thing you can expect growing up is that kids pick on kids. Whether or not you play Chess has no bearing on this fact. So there is no reason to give in. Chess is not a bad thing at all. It is great for helping you improve your reasoning skills. When you're good at Chess, it is a legitimate source of pride. And using your mind in the way that Chess requires actually helps protect you from depression. When some kid doesn't appreciate Chess and chooses to make fun of others for playing it, it's a sign of insecurity, not a sign that he is hip or cool and knows something that you don't. On the contrary, if you enjoy and play Chess, you know something that he doesn't.
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.