Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Should we get rid of stalemate?


  • 10 months ago · Quote · #121

    Senator-Blutarsky

    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.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #122

    timbeau

    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...

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #123

    Senator-Blutarsky

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #124

    Topargo

    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.


Back to Top

Post your reply: