17682 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!
Because stalemate is the foundation of 99% of endgame theory. And those of us who have actually put in the time to actually learn endgames, don't want to re-learn them all, because of the sniveling of a few newbies who never learned endgames.
yes. pay attention and don't stalemate.
I also love endgames, and have studied my share of endgame theory. But endgame theory would start anew, just like opening theory would if we changed the starting positions of the pieces. So yes, it would upset some tea tables. But that's just the sort of change that's powerful enough to make top-level games of chess more decisive and less drawish. Anyway, those who put in the work to study the new endgame theory would also benefit. Endgame study might be even more valuable, because it's possible that more endgames would have a full point at stake, rather than a half point. Endgames could be more exciting!
Let's hope they would be at least, because probably more top-level games would end by simplifying down to endgames, since winning chances would be less likely to diminish in the endgame.
Stalemate is totally practical.
It allows accidents and natural disasters to be part of the game.
For example, the enemy is totally outnumbered, then a guy goes to throw a grenade to finish them off but accidentally throws the pin and drops the grenade.
The King really is the most powerful piece. Everyone else must be sacrificed, just to keep the King safe. (Excusing the pathetic fallacy...)Anyway, if you can't get your head around Stalemate (not to mention plain old Mate) go play with a ball instead...
You see, if the king is trapped, all the enemy forces are around him but they have to wait for the King to make his move before they can nab him.
In that respect, chess is kind of like a game of "you're it!".
So the King decides not to move at all and all the enemy can do is stare at him waiting for him to make his move so they can nab him, but if he doesn't move ... stalemate is the only sensible outcome.
If we did not have stalemate think about what would happen! So if your opponent has no legal move but not in check loses! It would add another way of winning and losing. That would change chess. And not in a good way. All those beautiful combonations and moves related to stalemate gone! And only for complete beginers who aren't bothered to study the endgame.
"Dayton Chess Masters Round 5!"
Michael Adams solved the French yesterday
by Hatty-Freeham a few minutes ago
A new opening: The Descrophic Attack
by Charetter115 a few minutes ago
by Fiveofswords 3 minutes ago
by cooldrool 4 minutes ago
the best chess player ever
by Murgen 4 minutes ago
why is ruy lopez considered the strongest
by Fiveofswords 6 minutes ago
Who is your favourite chess player
by Hatty-Freeham 9 minutes ago
7/29/2015 - Precise Moves
by steved_nj 9 minutes ago
help in practicing The Pole?
by pfren 14 minutes ago
by notmtwain 17 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!