8285 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!
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.
"As to your point, just wear a hat and nobody will notice."
That's a pretty funny retort.
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.
Interestingly, it's been said of chess that the winner is simply the player who makes the next-to-last blunder. In this case that would be the opponent of the person who just went from a winning position to a drawn one. The win should then go to the stalemated player?
The hat bit was funny, the rest was suspect. Games where you are a clear pawn ahead that has an unavoidable potential to promote are resignable and frequently result in a win without demonstrating the ability to checkmate or push it that one last square or two. Checkmate is a frequent result in all chess, but you specified master chess which makes your first point about material going beyond the pawn spurious - which is it we are discussing, perfect play, master play or general play? Again a crushing positional advantage can win a game...case in point zugzwang style positions where checkmate or loss of material is inevitable can also lead to resignation therefore a win. Time running out frequently happens where one side has extra material and is trying to push a win rather than accept a draw given that advantage; you are now specifying "usually" rather than "you have to be..." Next, a grandmaster being picked up by his mom - at no point in the portion I flippantly quoted (and I understand context, I chose to ignore it) was GM mentioned. Thank you for bowing to me; having read a few forum posts I know a little about cheating, also from the fact 4 of the games I lost in turn based chess were against opponents who were then banned for cheating, and not from any report I made. As for bribing, I admit I speculated but in the face of a sweeping statement like "you have to be..." I felt it was artistic license I could be permitted. Again, the hat bit was funny, although a bit derivative of Coneheads.
The context of the quote that you responded to was Grandmaster players who favored changing the stalemate rule, specifically Kaufman and Nimzovitch. Normally you have to be about a Rook ahead to deliver checkmate. Even that sometimes is not enough in the case of a King+2knights vs. king. There are a few exceptions. Some of the exceptions you listed I would classify as non-chess (mothers, and disqualifications)
"About a rook ahead" just makes me laugh every time I read it... sorry. Maybe whoever said that quote meant "a large advantage" because clearly they coudln't have meant you have to literally be up 5 points on the relative value counting system.
Games are won all the time where material is even... so then the relative count is relative... so that "up a rook" means nothing. Surely it's better to say "a significant advantage" and the given reason as "drawing margin in endgames is large"
Until you can play at an extremely high level, you can't really talk about the drawing margin of many endgames effecting your play or results. Sure you can repeat what some stronger players have opined... but it seems most top players have never weighed in on it. And picking up their right for them while bringing up things like "it's frustrating to play well only to draw" falls flat to say the least.
blakey, blakey, I think I indicated in humour that I would take context only if I wanted to. Is that unfair? Possibly, but you did the same thing when you suggested that a GM would play on till the humble pawn was promoted to the rook or queen. The same thing applies to the crushing positional advantage situation where a GM would likely resign also. The extra rook is not a factor in either evaluation as it does not exist except in potential. And Chess Moms exist, just as Soccer Moms do. Disqualifications are breaches of the Laws of Chess and are the equivalent of a red card in football, therefore part of chess. Again, in case its still not clear, I quoted one line of what you said to have fun with it, not to argue that a rook was usually a winning advantage or not.
I am not sure how Tartakower's quip was relevant to my quote that you cited, since I wasn't talking about going from a winning position to a drawn one, rather I was talking about having an advantage but insufficient to force a mate.
I think there is a distinction between red cards in football which is part of the game, and generally not considered an act of moral turpitude, and being disqualified for cheating. The red card would be comparable to losing a chess game on time.
Well on football, people have been sent off for racially abusing other players or committing fouls so bad and extreme they have been prosecuted in criminal court for them...cheating is a breach of the rules, a red card is for a breach of the rules - no analogy is perfect but that one is close enough. Especially for humour at 1.25 AM. Night night all.
it looked like we got ourselves a troll feeder here, like sungolier to gavinator now we got blake to monster_with_no_name.
"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.
Chivalry is dead.
Stalemate rule, soon to follow.
The point of it is that abolishing stalemate would require a king not under attack to commit suicide. In the metaphor for life that this is that should never happen.If you consider a king under siege, the stalemate is equivalent to having the castle surrounded with overwhelming force and forgetting to keep track of the whereabouts of the king. You allow him to slip out of the noose in the confusion. He plays you for a fool in the endgame and lives to fight another day.
The stalemate should be left alone. The interesting thing is that to get a stalemate the would be loser has to show utter contempt or lack of respect for his opponent's ability or he would have resigned based on position and numbers. It is thus the only allowable trash-talking in the game.
In that case all games should end in a draw, immediately after one player gets a losing position. Because we dont want them to metaphoically commit suicide.
Outside of these recent threads, I've never heard anyone talk about abolishing stalemate.
It's definitely been much more frequent in the past month or two. Must be because it's summer. Some people have nothing else to do.
Full Moon Summer?
No, that particular monster has a name.
Concerned about trolling, again
by SPARTANEMESIS a few minutes ago
Is Fritz better than Rybka
by harshadmathur a few minutes ago
Why do so few players play 30 min live chess?
by DrJamesB a few minutes ago
How do you clean Vinyl Chessboard?
by chicky-chicky a few minutes ago
Why is this possible?
by ivandh 8 minutes ago
18 Queens and two Knights
by 666AAA666 10 minutes ago
The Halasz Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.f4
by Patzermeister 11 minutes ago
Top Ten Worst Ways to Promote Chess
by NimzoRoy 14 minutes ago
by nikre 16 minutes ago
5/18/2013 - Mate in 4
by Bryan681972 16 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com