10841 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!
I've got a good reason for asking.
Oh, I'd guess since the very day the rule was made.
Politely debating? Well, probably ever since the rules began to evolve... so from the beginning of chess time.
Arguing? Even since chess.com forum began.
I asked cause I. A. Horowitz predicted it wiould soon be abolished in his book called Chess for Beginners, copywrited 1950.
so what would be the outcome of perpetual check if not stalemate?
He meant when the king can't move.
so stalemate would not be eliminated then...just one form of it
It's stale, mate!
A least a couple hundred years.
ChefBruce: Not every draw is stalemate.
"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.
So who's going to abolish it, the chess Supreme Court?
FIDE. Personally, I don't think they should cause it depends on you opponent being careless.
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.
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.
I'm obviously no expert, but it does indeed seem like it would change the game a lot.
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.
Bad sports manship/ Racism
by thegreat_patzer a few minutes ago
Live chess will not load.
by Cowbearcat 2 minutes ago
Judit Polgar would of been able to beat all male champions
by thegreat_patzer 6 minutes ago
Chess Equipment Photos
by killercrab 10 minutes ago
Encourage Your Opponent
by LHB58 18 minutes ago
5/29/2015 - Kramnik-Anand WC match 2008
by Linarvus 19 minutes ago
by kco 19 minutes ago
why didn't chigorin become world champ
by tkbunny 22 minutes ago
Have you ever met a GM? Story?
by Elubas 30 minutes ago
The f5 Opening
by Jion_Wansu 31 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!