Upload
Login or register
x

well played, my liege

Is 'it
rra t
CRAP :3
...
+1100
Views: 39821 Favorited: 48 Submitted: 12/13/2015
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to tiscomics Subscribe to oc-comic-makers

Comments(95):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
95 comments displayed.
Reply
+317
#12 - include (12/13/2015) [-]
Reply
+90
#32 to #25 - sherlockbatman ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
**sherlockbatman used "*roll picture*"**
**sherlockbatman rolled image**
wat
Reply
+9
#66 to #32 - snorlaxfoo (12/14/2015) [-]
**snorlaxfoo used "*roll picture*"**
**snorlaxfoo rolled image**
Reply
+13
#31 to #25 - conisnon (12/14/2015) [-]
Hey, itumblr!
Didn't think I'd see you trolling here!
Reply
+2
#68 to #31 - innocentbabies (12/14/2015) [-]
Have this.
Reply
+1
User avatar #62 to #25 - carth (12/14/2015) [-]
Come on man, gotta stay in your theme.
Reply
+4
User avatar #67 to #12 - tropenthatshtup (12/14/2015) [-]
Dear include you appear to have cropped out the source.
It is buttersafe.
Reply
+38
#22 - myjunk (12/13/2015) [-]
Revolutionary Chess
Reply
+10
#26 to #22 - godofhorizons (12/14/2015) [-]
If played correctly slowly and tediously by the pawns, there is absolutely no way for the revolucion to win.
Reply
+6
User avatar #65 to #26 - thenewgizmobox (12/14/2015) [-]
technically the pawns have no king so no checkmate and by standard rules the only win state possible for one side is a draw.
Reply
+3
#71 to #65 - anon (12/14/2015) [-]
or just take out every pawn, that must count as a win
Reply
0
#78 to #65 - brainstormer (12/14/2015) [-]
but... all the pieces are of one color...? so everybody wins? or everyone actually loses either way? hm...
Reply
+2
User avatar #70 to #26 - haroldsaxon (12/14/2015) [-]
Maybe. What if the officers suicide bomb A or H to get the queen to the back?
Reply
+1
User avatar #74 to #26 - volksworgen (12/14/2015) [-]
Well they've already lost their king so.
Reply
+91
#1 - abesimpson (12/13/2015) [-]
GIF
I must admit, it took me a while.
Reply
+2
User avatar #2 to #1 - coledunk ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
could you explain it to me then?
Reply
+38
User avatar #3 to #2 - abesimpson (12/13/2015) [-]
The king did that thing you do in chess don't k ow how it's called in english where you switch with the tower. It's a defensive technique.
Reply
+47
User avatar #7 to #3 - platinumaltaria ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
Would that be "castling"?
Reply
+15
User avatar #8 to #7 - abesimpson (12/13/2015) [-]
Yep. I didn't know how it's called in english but I do know, thanks.
Reply
+9
User avatar #9 to #8 - abesimpson (12/13/2015) [-]
*I do now. fuuck
Reply
+4
#17 to #3 - jinxleven ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
It's called castling. Here is a video for those who are interested www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jXQyGaeUV8
Reply
0
#13 to #3 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
Nah bro I think he was just in check.
Reply
+2
User avatar #14 to #13 - abesimpson (12/13/2015) [-]
But the Black King isn't in anyone's path. And the white king can't do the "castling" move if he's in check.
Reply
+1
#23 to #14 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
I see now, you're right. My bad.
Reply
0
#19 to #3 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
i got that but where is the joke? and why would black care if white did that he got enough peasants to win in theory
Reply
0
User avatar #64 to #19 - preacherQ (12/14/2015) [-]
Its a pun. They managed to break down the gates of a castle only to find another castle inside.
Reply
0
User avatar #4 to #3 - coledunk ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
thought so
Reply
+11
User avatar #6 - rulebysecrecy ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
couldnt the blacks move their bishop in front of the pawn on the left and have a check at least?
Reply
0
User avatar #10 to #6 - zerosonaku ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
that would be the rook your targeting. the move is called castling where the king moves behind the rook, only usable if neither the rook or the king has moved yet.
Reply
+1
User avatar #18 to #10 - aximil (12/13/2015) [-]
You also can't do it if you are in check or you have to move through a square that's under attack. For instance you can't castle through a square that the enemy Bishop can move to, even if the Castling play won't put you in check.
Reply
+27
#11 to #6 - paddypancake (12/13/2015) [-]
I don't see the bishop you mention exept if you mean one of those who are in the middle of the crowd in the right corner. Thing in the front seems to be a tower since it looks the same as the white tower. Not sure on which field this tower is though.
Reply
+1
User avatar #27 to #11 - seferofe (12/14/2015) [-]
Check the very bottom right corner, might be them.
Reply
0
User avatar #91 to #27 - paddypancake (12/14/2015) [-]
"I don't see the bishop you mention exept if you mean one of those who are in the middle of the crowd in the right corner."
Well i can't blame you for overlooking this i wrote exept instead of except afterall. Also a weird sentence i could just have said bottom right corner as you did rather than "the middle of the crowd in the right corner".
Reply
0
#92 to #91 - seferofe (12/14/2015) [-]
I'm on about this guy.
Also the name of the piece you circled is a rook.
Reply
+1
User avatar #93 to #92 - paddypancake (12/14/2015) [-]
Yeah in german the name for rook is "Turm" which translates into tower. Noticed by now that i made this mistake but thanks for pointing it out. Yeah i meant the two guys in the blue circle the whole time. Looks like both of them are bishops
Reply
0
User avatar #94 to #93 - seferofe (12/14/2015) [-]
Ah, I was just making sure on who you were talking about. I only actually saw one of the bishops until you mentioned two of them.
Reply
-21
#20 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
I never understood why chess is sexist.

The woman has to defend an incompetent king that can hardly move.
Why does the king have no power? Why does the queen have all the power? Shouldn't the king be stronger?
When did chess turn into game of thrones?
Reply
0
User avatar #76 to #20 - admiralen ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
Reminds me of that video where he calls chess the worst game ever and says that the only female character is a total mary sue that can move as far as she wants in all directions
Reply
+7
#48 to #20 - gerfox (12/14/2015) [-]
Yeah, you're right. Its not like the king is the most important piece on the board or anything.
Reply
+50
#21 to #20 - installation (12/13/2015) [-]
We get it, you hate SJWs. But please, **** off and be anon elsewhere.
Reply
0
#24 to #21 - anon (12/14/2015) [-]
now i understand why 4chan goes ******* when someone is off topic
Reply
-11
#28 to #21 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
isnt your username supposed to be whiteknightkun?
Reply
+9
#29 to #28 - installation (12/14/2015) [-]
No it's supposed to say "installation" you illiterate **** .
Reply
-8
#30 to #29 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
i was calling you a whiteknight you imbecile.
saying " **** " redundantly does not make you correct.
it makes you a needless nimrod.
Reply
+4
User avatar #38 to #30 - CrowbarNinja (12/14/2015) [-]
Your just an edgy black knight asshole, spreading hate like a sour cunt.
Reply
0
#79 to #38 - anon (12/14/2015) [-]
"Spreading hate". The only people who consider anti-SJW to be 'spreading hate' are SJWs, you feminist douchebag.
Reply
0
User avatar #95 to #79 - CrowbarNinja (12/15/2015) [-]
No, because SJWs spread hate like wildfire with no regard. They want a twisted, unfounded social pecking order that they call equality. I cant even say what they think hate is because it changes to fit their arguments. You just like insulting people like a barbarian, which is just as cancerous. You can ignore SJWs just like you can ignore *********** , but the world would be a better place without both.
Reply
-6
#39 to #38 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
you're*
says the white knight.
Reply
+1
User avatar #40 to #39 - CrowbarNinja (12/14/2015) [-]
Nah, im a bit to heavy handed with ****** , and thanks for proving my point.
Reply
-5
#41 to #40 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
your point being you are a white knight that is spreading ignorance?
true. you did that.
Reply
0
User avatar #50 to #41 - CrowbarNinja (12/14/2015) [-]
What ignorance have i spread that you havent? I merely stated that you spread cancer by being a pissy downer, any truths you say still have their merit. And dont think i was defending the guy, anon was just talking out loud, but you're the real bitch showing the same blind hate and ignorance sjws do.
Reply
-1
#52 to #50 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
my initial statement was just calling him a whiteknight and he comes back calling me illiterate with many ***** .
after that i was merely responding to his hate.
dont say im spreading hate while defending that toxic ********* .
you jumping on me for speaking my mind in response to hate seems whiteknightish.
Reply
0
User avatar #55 to #52 - CrowbarNinja (12/14/2015) [-]
He responded to your statement of what his name should be by calling you an illiterate **** be cause his name isnt what you presented. We use images that are relevant with what we say, which his was, it happened to have a lot of ***** , seemed like a fair trade, one generalization for another, one was more colored with an image with many ***** , whoopty doo.
Reply
-1
#58 to #55 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
i said "supposed to be" not "it is".
if i said i read it that way then he might be able to call me illiterate.
my statement was an observation that the name should have been that already, not that it already was "whiteknightkun"
so i was not illiterate in the slightest.
Reply
0
User avatar #59 to #58 - CrowbarNinja (12/14/2015) [-]
Agreed, still generalization spreads hate, a simple clarification from anon could have shut him up without being uppity.
Reply
-1
#61 to #59 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
agreed. still, generalization spreads hate. a simple clarification from anon could have shut him up without being uppity.*
not far off. just needed a bit of shifting.
Reply
+1
#33 to #30 - pikumin (12/14/2015) [-]
Well, atleast he's a legendary hunter.
Reply
-4
#34 to #33 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
my intent is the more colloquial modern version of the term.
it is implied for sure.
Reply
0
#35 to #34 - pikumin (12/14/2015) [-]
Well, then you still said the same thing?
Reply
-2
#36 to #35 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
no i did not. i said my intent was to call him the version that says "an inept person." which is the colloquialism also known as the "slang" term.
Reply
0
#37 to #36 - pikumin (12/14/2015) [-]
K
Reply
0
User avatar #42 to #28 - agreatusername (12/14/2015) [-]
I dont get it..
Reply
-2
#43 to #42 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
he is being a white knight on fj yet he is getting thumbs. wtf fj? is it another migration or some **** ?
Reply
0
#44 to #43 - agreatusername (12/14/2015) [-]
Its probably because your insult made absolutely no sense with what he said. FJ hates anons, thats probably why hes getting thumbs. And why the **** do you care if hes getting thumbs, they are useless code on an ever increasingly autistic site.
Its probably because your insult made absolutely no sense with what he said.
FJ hates anons, thats probably why hes getting thumbs.
And why the **** do you care if hes getting thumbs, they are useless code on an ever increasingly autistic site.
Reply
-1
#45 to #44 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
i was saying he was being a whiteknight then segued into commenting on the tendency to bandwagon becoming more and more prevalent. i was wondering if we have another migration.
Reply
0
User avatar #47 to #45 - agreatusername (12/14/2015) [-]
What part of his post was "whiteknightish"?
Reply
-1
#49 to #47 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
slamming someone slamming sjw's.
kinda white knightish.
called him whiteknightkun and he responds by calling me illiterate.
bandwagon is born.
Reply
0
User avatar #51 to #49 - agreatusername (12/14/2015) [-]
I think you were kinda grasping at straws there, friend.
I think you just wanted to call someone a white knight and see what happened.
Like, his post had nothing to do with women, nothing to do with men, nothing to do with protecting women.
"We get it, you hate SJWs. But please, **** off and be anon elsewhere."
Cut out the fat and you get something along the lines of..
" **** of anon, nobody likes you."
Reply
-1
#53 to #51 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
the thing was he assumed the anon was talkiing about sjw's so it doesnt matter that the original comment wasnt about any of that.
he intended to put him down for attacking sjw's
Reply
0
User avatar #54 to #53 - agreatusername (12/14/2015) [-]
Well given the context and the current state of turmoil certain parts of society are in, its a pretty safe bet thats what anon was getting at. Given the context of course.
Reply
-1
#56 to #54 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
well anyway all i gotta say is **** that guy because he came at me with all that aggression for a small crack like that.
not only that he came at my natural strength which is literacy.
i have been reading books since i was two years old and i currently author short stories in publications.
sometimes i win.
and before you get on me about capitalization and apostrophe use im in thread writing mode.
also **** that anon for creating such a large headache.
and **** feminazi's because i hate them.
but mostly **** that guy.
Reply
+1
#57 to #56 - agreatusername (12/14/2015) [-]
Hold up fam.
Before you go any further reading this.
Watch the webm....

Are you done?
Now then, read this.
I dont care.
Reply
-1
#60 to #57 - mastercolossus (12/14/2015) [-]
nope. not watching. not reading.
im guessing is a variation of the lacking ***** to give.
you already gave enough of a **** to debate to this point so that makes your lack of ***** a blatant lie.
well i do give a **** or two.
especially when it comes to my literacy.
Reply
+5
#63 - scottishsquid (12/14/2015) [-]
**scottishsquid used "*roll picture*"**
**scottishsquid rolled image** mfw i dont understand chess
Reply
+3
#46 - gerfox (12/14/2015) [-]
mf before I understood the joke
Reply
+3
#15 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
You can't castle while in check.
Reply
+2
User avatar #16 to #15 - sciencexplain (12/13/2015) [-]
He wasn't in check anyways. I would assume all those black "pieces" are pawns, so they'd need to be diagonal to the king to place him in check.
Reply
0
User avatar #77 to #16 - internetexplain (12/14/2015) [-]
actually m8 the black army has a rook and a bishop with them , check the bottom right
Reply
0
User avatar #80 to #77 - sciencexplain (12/14/2015) [-]
They aren't positioned in the right areas to put him in check, so it's still not relevant.
Reply
0
User avatar #81 to #80 - internetexplain (12/14/2015) [-]
the black rook is right at the front , in a position where he could take out the far-right (left from white's view point) peasant , breaking the white king's defense.

So I'd say it is relevant.
Reply
0
User avatar #82 to #81 - sciencexplain (12/14/2015) [-]
The rook cannot move diagonally, only an unspecified number of spaces in one straight direction. Therefore, if the rook happened to take the piece defending the king's side on his left, the king could take that rook piece anyways. Either way you look at it, the rook is too weak on it's own to put the king in check, because it needs to be one space away from the king, at which point it can take the rook.
Reply
0
User avatar #83 to #82 - internetexplain (12/14/2015) [-]
yes and assuming the black army is only 1 tile away from the whites , merely sending 1 peasant forward is gonna put him in check, because you lured him out prior by sacrificing your rook.

White would then be forced to either move the king or attack the black peasant , which in either case is going to open white up to even more attacks from black.

soon after, it's checkmate.
Reply
0
User avatar #84 to #83 - sciencexplain (12/14/2015) [-]
"assuming the black army is only 1 tile away from the whites"

but you can SEE they aren't. with that many spaces, i'd have enough room to deal with a massive chain of pawns. That **** isn't too difficult if it's just pawns, but you're thinking so close to the end that you've forgotten that it isn't there yet. either way, my original point was right that he wouldn't be in check, and you were right that the black side had more than just pawns. why are we arguing?
Reply
0
User avatar #85 to #84 - internetexplain (12/14/2015) [-]
idk , aren't we theorizing on how long it would take black to take out white at this point?
Reply
0
User avatar #86 to #85 - sciencexplain (12/14/2015) [-]
it's what it's basically come to, yeah. at this point though, there are infinite numbers of combinations and patterns, so i don't think we could state with accuracy how long it'll take to finish.
Reply
0
User avatar #87 to #86 - internetexplain (12/14/2015) [-]
let's just speculate on how long it's NOT going to take
and I'll just throw this out there, that this will not take 13 billion years.
Reply
+1
User avatar #88 to #87 - sciencexplain (12/14/2015) [-]
you are a genius
Reply
+1
User avatar #89 to #88 - internetexplain (12/14/2015) [-]
Too bad that I don't know what sarcasm is.
Reply
0
User avatar #90 to #89 - sciencexplain (12/14/2015) [-]
such a shame
Reply
+2
#69 - anon (12/14/2015) [-]
Reply
0
User avatar #73 - karvarausku (12/14/2015) [-]
Do I have a hat?
Reply
0
User avatar #75 to #73 - mrleague (12/14/2015) [-]
no
Reply
0
#72 - Thundergod (12/14/2015) [-]
Sour King? I see through your puns, tiscomics!
Reply
0
User avatar #5 - lickmeforfree (12/13/2015) [-]
Its ok guys, they have a tower.
 
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)