>people who take advantage of time/move limits in chess by

how dare they play according to the agreed upon rules in an attempt to win.

File: 1469590293433.gif (133KB, 256x194px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 256x194px

>>48863969
>FURRYIOUS
I need to go to bed.

>>48864001
Well I didn't know I would be facing someone who had three units that were able to attack adjacent units without moving.
I did beat them in the end though, they slipped up and I managed to get one of their units with a piece that swaps places with the enemy king whenever it kills any major units; and since their king was in range of my dragon, they had to spend their turn moving their king rather than dealing with the fact that a minotaur had teleported behind their lines.

>People who want to go back to the era of Draw-Go control

>>48864001
To put it in to terms you're more familiar with, it's like your opponent in a fighting game spending the entire time blocking and dodging as soon as they get in a few good hits, waiting for the timer to run out with them having slightly more remaining health than you; yes it's *a* way to win, but that doesn't mean it's not a shitty way to win that exploits a part of the rules, and fuck anyone that goes out of their way to play like that.

>>48863969
>People who take advantage of supply limits in war by simply waiting out an opposing force instead of conducting a suicidal assault

Cowards amirite? So unrealistic.

>>48864199
Are you a scrub? You sound like a scrub.

>>48864199
>Doesn't know what throws are for

>>48864199
>Thinking it's easier to dodge/block every hit than it was to land the blows in the first place.
>Being this much of a scrub.

File: 1469437455122.jpg (32KB, 420x600px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 420x600px

>>48864260
>tfw British veterans frequently had to use this strategy against primitive tribespeople in one country
>despite killing loads of them like that and using better weapons they still lost one soldier for every two tribespeople
And that, kids, is what happens when you give guns to warlike bushpeople who can build bullet resistant fortresses overnight, protect themselves from artillery, and used 20% of their own population as target practice.

>>48863969
>People who play a flawed system and then bitch when someone uses the flaws to their advantage.

>>48864327
It really is easier though, especially if they've lost most of their pawns.

>>48864404
>warlike bushpeople who can build bullet resistant fortresses overnight, protect themselves from artillery, and used 20% of their own population as target practice.

...Kiwis?

>>48864186
>People want a hugfest of Magic: The tappening where we only use creatures and lands with nothing else in the deck.

>>48864423

Attacking and defending are equally difficult, based on the skill of your opponent.

If you're having an easier time defending because you took out your opponents pawns, then the reason it's easy is because you're better than your opponent.

>>48864430
Yes.
New Zealand history is extremely short and even relative to its length there's not much to say about it, but the land wars are impressive.

>>48864451
>opponent is making you spend almost all your turns moving pieces back and forth to defend, and shrugging off any attempts to break up the attack creating an unwinnable situation
>somehow think you're better than them

>>48864518
>somehow think you're better than them
>Because they didn't get you into an unwinnable situation first

>You're in
>an unwinnable
>situation
>thinking they're not better than you

File: face 1454884264802.gif (18KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 125x125px

>>48863969
You shoulda had a better army list.
l2p

>>48864518
>>>48864451 (You)
>>opponent is making you spend almost all your turns moving pieces back and forth to defend, and shrugging off any attempts to break up the attack creating an unwinnable situation
>>somehow think you're better than them

...yeah. That's kind of how it works.

If they weren't better than you, why aren't you the one with an upperhand?

Or are you saying they got there by chance, and held the position? In which case YOU fucked up, and they were good enough to take advantage of it?

Nope, that still paints them as better than you.

Git gud, son.

>>48863969
Start taking their pieces anyways. An impenetrable defense breaks down very quickly when you sacrifice less expensive pieces to open up their defense and then slide in your attack pieces and eat more points than they have to spare.

There's a reason there are no games won with 'impenetrable defense time wasting tactics' in competitive chess. It becomes simple math. How much can they afford to lose out of their defense before you have more points than they do?

>>48863969

How the hell would that help them win? Are you playing bughouse or something? If you've got the upper hand, sitting around and doing nothing won't make their time run down faster.

>>48863969
No defense in impenetrable you just suck.

>>48864199
so what you're saying is, you're bad at both games?

>>48865888

Not OP, but that's not quite true in chess.

But usually the resort to one of the impenetrable defense tricks (perpetual check being the most common) is something you do when you're behind and scrabbling for a draw, not ahead and trying to force a win on time.

>>48865938
Getting a draw when you're behind isn't some impenetrable defense trick.

>/tg/
>good at chess

>>48864199
>WAAA!
>If you don't win the way I want to win it doesn't count!

>It's another OP is a faggot thread

>>48865946

>Getting a draw when you're behind isn't some impenetrable defense trick.

I would say it is. How are you defining "impenetrable defense"? If you're on the defensive (because you're behind) but you put your opponent in perpetual check, he can't break through your defense, it's impenetrable.

And then you get games like trading down to an ending of K+B+rook pawn of wrong color, which is again impenetrable assuming you can get your king to the right corner.

But that is an entirely fair strategy
>Furry image
I feel like this has all just been an elaborate ruse

So to clarify: You think that Yu-Gi-Oh players that win in one turn are good play? That if you don't even let your opponent act once you have played a good game? You are fine if an opponent gives you no chance to win?

>>48864435
>>48864186
>people who don't play Legacy

>>48866068
>I feel like this has all just been an elaborate ruse
Duh

>>48864282
This is pretty much platonic scrub, yeah.

>>48864199
It's not like this.

It's like doing that, BUT also pausing the game for ten seconds every five seconds of play time, but the timer is still running down.