10321 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Sometimes you look at how your opponent has been playing look at the position on the board and judge that you can play your way into a stalemate. It brings an attack into a lost cause. Also, arrogant and careless players would have no incentive to make their games more precise. After all once you get the numbers it's over.
Two posts above make sense.
i think we should abolish drug testing. i say let 'em dope all they want this ain't the tour de france we aint no pansies.
When you say abolish do you mean making it illegal to stalemate your opponent?
No. Some people on here want to make stalemate a win just like checkmate.
Yes, in essence they want to change the game completely. There are two ways to win a chess game now: checkmate and resignation (which acknowledges that checkmate is unavoidable). They want to make stalemate a third way to win, and change a great deal of endgame theory in the process. As paulgottleib noted above, it would leave us with a poorer, duller game.
Of course, I'm supposing those in favor of the change don't know all that much endgame theory to have to re-learn, so it's not a biggie to them.
and why was this thread locked and not the latest one ?
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stalemate-rule-needs-to-be-abolished?page=1 he did this a year ago.
Ensuring you have a winnable position before confidently entering into an endgame is a real delicate art. The elimination of stalemate would take a lot of this need for precision out of the game and would allow players to charge into endings with much more abandon. The beautiful game would be left much, much less beautiful for the change.
Historically, in many countries stalemate was a win for the stalemated side. In other countries in was a draw. Only Turkey, in the 18th century allow for a win by the side stalemating. In the 19th century, most countries started going with the draw, thinking that giving the side that was losing a win simply because of a stalemate was unreasonable, such as now letting a person win on time with insufficient material. To me a draw seems a fair solution to a stalemate since usually the winning side forces or allows the stalemate unnecessarily, but if that side was winning, his inability to checkmate shouldn't be rewarded equal to checkmate, anymore than a person who is winning but falls into perpetual check shouldn't win. Actually, it seems to me that there are better arguments for abolishingor changing in some way the 50 move rule or 3 fold rep. The 50 move rule seems to go through periodic changes anyway. I wonder just how much stalemate, other than as a tactical tool, really affects higher level chess. I know there have been a few examples, but even those few would have to be statistically insignificant. And at a lower level, stalemate adds a bit of interest, giving the losing player one last chance to salvage a little dignity.
Yeah, this has gone beyond ridiculous to absurd, and never approached sublime along the way.
" I wonder just how much stalemate, other than as a tactical tool, really affects higher level chess. I know there have been a few examples, but even those few would have to be statistically insignificant."
I don't think that's correct at all. The spectre of stalemate looms over a huge number of endgames. Even though stalemate itself occurs rarely, the threat is dominant factor in many king and powan endings. If stalemate was a loss for thestalemated side, almost all pawn-up endings would be a trivial win
That's what I mean as a tactical tool -where it may have an important effect is limiting move choices or plans. As an actual ocurance, I would think it's statistcially insignificant.
A tremendous number of fascinating endgames would simply disappear if the stalemate rule was abolished. We would be left with a simpler and duller game.
If a stalemate counted as .75 win, we would have a more complicated and interesting game.
"At first sight it may seem unfair to you that a player with such a huge lead should be "cheated" out of victory. But the stalemate is historically grounded in the idea of penalizing a player who is clumsy in making his big advantage tell. The stalemate rule imparts a chivalrous note to the game by making it possible for a hopelessly outnumbered player to snatch a last minute draw if his opponent is careless. In recent years, the stalemate rule has been denounced as an anachronism, and the chances are that in the not too distant future it will be abolished." So no, he didn't qualify it precisely.
That was the intent but, unfortunately the rule had a lot unintentional effects on endgame theory.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that the stalemate rule adds a tremendous amount of intrest, complexity, and paradox to the game.
Intrest and paradox are subjective words, but complexity seems fairly objective. It seems clear that counting a stalemate as .75 win would add complexity to the game.
I bet the people that are trying to get rid of it are the ones who are the ones giving the stalemate when they are winning.
Yes it did approach sublime. It might not have reached it, but it got real close. :)
Not at the master level. I don't think GM Larry Kaufman has given Stalemate from a winning position. I rather doubt Nimzovich ever did. In order to win a game a chess you have to be about a rook ahead in material. I think Nimzovich got tired of grinding through tournaments day after day, clearly out playing his opponents, and having a clear advantage; but insufficient advantage to win. It is hard work to get an advantage against a master (even from a player as strong as Nimzovich), and must be extremely frustrating to have nothing to show for your hard creative work.
I have never stalemated an opponent from a winning position (at least since I was 12 which was 55 years ago). I have pulled off a couple of stalemate combinations with a rook vs. Queen.
Then you have no concept of the sublime whatever.
How about la slime?
In order to win a game a chess you have to be about a rook ahead in material.
Not counting those games where you are a pawn ahead. Or the ones when your positional advantage is crushing. Or when you checkmate. Or when your opponent has a heart attack. Or when their time runs out. Or their mom comes to pick them up. Or you bribe them. Or they get disqualified for cheating. Or...I think we get the point.
"soon" probably needs to be qualified :-)
In chess years, "soon" could be another 750-1000 human years.
Games where you are a pawn ahead as generally won by queening the pawn and obtaining sufficient material to checkmate. A king hunt resulting in checkmate rarely happens in master chess, usually can be avoided by giving up material. A crushing positional advantage is usually won by cashing in the advantage for material. Time running out is an exception, but usually happens from a lost position. I can't remember the last time I saw a grandmaster lose because his mom came to pick him up. I will bow to your expertise on bribing your opponent or getting disqualified for cheating. As to your point, just wear a hat and nobody will notice.
12/5/2013 - Too Many Attackers, Too Little Defenders
by birurajopadhyaya 2 minutes ago
Subscribing a chess engine
by Permutohedron 6 minutes ago
25th official chess.com tournament
by kohai 9 minutes ago
Based on what basis the tournament creator can removed a player
by Blkau96 10 minutes ago
Drawing a 2700 GM...as black!
by GeorgeBlackChess123 10 minutes ago
QG - Tarrasch vs Albin Counter Gambit
by FromMuToYou 16 minutes ago
My luckiest game. And puzzle for you
by Britiannia 22 minutes ago
my favourites about chess.com:
by Mersaphe 22 minutes ago
Shogi, xiangqi, and other variants
by TheBigDecline 25 minutes ago
Who Is Your Crush In Chess?
by TheBigDecline 32 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!