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.
How long do you suppose chess players have been arguing about abolishing
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
some people like hairballs, i like stalemate
Why on earth would you want to abolish stalemate? The fact that this is even open for debate depresses me greatly. The intelligence of some people....
Stalemate tends brings out the worst in some folks.
Outside of these recent threads, I've never heard anyone talk about abolishing stalemate.
Most people are unthinking sheep, incapable of questioning anything. They just want the least path of resistance. An authority gives them some commandment tablets and they bow down. They are lazy. Just look at the people here...
"the rules are the rules", is their arguement. When clearly we are debating *which rule would be best*.
Very often rules are stupid (look at the rules of the english language, its full of all kind of nonsense). As we evolve we change things.
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.
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.
That's just 2 GMs out of thousands GMs who played in last 100 years. May you'll manage to find few more examples. But I guess if somebody makes a vote one day the result is easily predictable - the stalemate rule will not be changed.
Outside of these recent threads, I've never heard anyone talk about abolishing stalemate.
Most people are unthinking sheep, incapable of questioning anything. They just want the least path of resistance. An authority gives them some commandment tablets and they bow down. They are lazy. Just look at the people here...
"the rules are the rules", is their arguement. When clearly we are debating *which rule would be best*.
Very often rules are stupid (look at the rules of the english language, its full of all kind of nonsense). As we evolve we change things.
Abolishing stalemate seems like the path of least resistance to me, when it comes to endgames.
Outside of these recent threads, I've never heard anyone talk about abolishing stalemate.
Most people are unthinking sheep, incapable of questioning anything. They just want the least path of resistance. An authority gives them some commandment tablets and they bow down. They are lazy. Just look at the people here...
"the rules are the rules", is their arguement. When clearly we are debating *which rule would be best*.
Very often rules are stupid (look at the rules of the english language, its full of all kind of nonsense). As we evolve we change things.
Stalemate rule will not change in any nearest future because vast majority of players prefer it the way it is. You can think it is stupid - I don't care what you think. I guess nobody really cares. It's just a game. Let us play it the way we like.
"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.