Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Stalemate needs to be abolished...


  • 10 months ago · Quote · #501

    uri65

    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

    I was thinking of a way to jolt your brains out of the mode of:
    "The rules are the rules"
    and actually arguing "which rule is best" not "which rule is current". (most seem not to get this).

    Existing rules create highly enjoyable game (not for you but for other 99.99% of players). So they are obviously good. Why to change?

    As for your "new" rules - I have no clue if it will be enjoyable.

    I also enjoy learning endgames a lot, have plenty of books. Do you have something to offer for your "new" chess?? That's where tradition comes in. You think it's bad but again 99.99% think it's great.

    This is highly personal and subjective but that's normal when we talk about a game played for fun.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #502

    AlCzervik

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 10 months ago · Quote · #503

    zborg

    "Stalemate is not a logical rule." 

    But @Monster's continual rant (remains) highly logical.

    Syllogisms reign supreme, yet again.  Laughing

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #504

    batgirl

    This thread is totally Stale, Mate.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #505

    NimzoRoy

    Very punny batgirl!

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #506

    Argonaut13

    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
    Estragon wrote:
    blake78613 wrote:
    Estragon wrote:
     

    Without stalemate, how can the weaker side ever draw in K + P v K unless the P can't be defended (leaving K v K)?  The only way to stop promotion is stalemate in one way or another.

    Oddly enough, it would be possible for the lone King to WIN without stalemate in the case of a Rook pawn (although not by force, of course).  White Kh8 Ph7, Black Kf7, White to move - LOSS!  How insane is that?

     

     

    That would be the main way, that after exchanges the King is inside the square of the pawn and closer to the enemy pawn than the defending king.  This comes up fairly often.  The other case is the King is in front of his rook pawn and the defending king is on the near bishop file with opposition.  I would say that if the superior side kept moving his pawn   until he was stalemated he would deserve to lose.

    LOSE, to the bare King?  And you think this makes more sense than stalemate?

    current rules (3 insane rules)

    *checkmate = king cant move without moving into check (a stupid double negative). THis would be like in soccer, a goal is when the ball is travelling so that it cant miss the net, but it shouldnt actually go into the net.

    *king cant move into check

    *If you cant move its a draw

    Alternate (1 sane elegant, easy to understand) rule:

    *capture the king. (that is all)


    No its not easy to understand. If you can capture the king to win standard games will feel like blitz games. I think if your complaining about stalemate because you keep giving stalemate, I suggest you look before you move and improve your endgame play so you wont give stalemate pretty much ever again because you have good knowledge of the endgame. You would want to keep stalemate again because it wont be affecting you when your winning. When your loosing in a million dollar game ,lets say, and the player is around 500 points higher than you in rating points; you would wish stalemate was around! Lets say you are loosing and you no legal moves left, it would have been a draw but no, stalemate is no longer here so who is the looser here not the person who is winning of course. And if you move into what was supposed to check for you, because why say check when your trying to take the king, who wins, like really now, who wins. Or lets change the rules again and make the king jump over the file or rank where a rook or queen is controlling to make the solution to it also? I am really sick of this getting rid of stalemate crap.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #507

    Argonaut13

    I might have repeated someones post, I didnt read them all btw.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #508

    Here_Is_Plenty

    Stalemate threads need to be abolished...

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #509

    Kens_Mom

    Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
    Stalemate threads need to be abolished...

    Then how am I supposed to spend my vacation?  This thread is the highlight of my summer.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #510

    e4nf3

    Stalemate is the due and proper punishment of the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" winner getting sloppy.

    I've done it more than once. How many times, I'm not telling...it is nobody's business. lol

    It really does make you feel like a fool to lose a game that you had all but won. In fact, I think it stings more than losing. And, the loser who gets a stalemate feels better than if he had won, because he was "down for the count".

    All around, it is a nifty law of nature. Chess is boring enough. Stalemate adds some spice and high drama (OK...that's a bit of a stretch) to the game.

    Eggshells...we are walking on eggshells in a minefield. That's what I keep telling myself, from start to finish.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #511

    zborg

    Buy a timeshare to highlight your summer.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #512

    Kens_Mom

    e4nf3 wrote:

    Stalemate is the due and proper punishment of the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" winner getting sloppy.

    I've done it more than once. How many times, I'm not telling...it is nobody's business. lol

    It really does make you feel like a fool to lose a game that you had all but won. In fact, I think it stings more than losing. And, the loser who gets a stalemate feels better than if he had won, because he was "down for the count".

    All around, it is a nifty law of nature. Chess is boring enough. Stalemate adds some spice and high drama (OK...that's a bit of a stretch) to the game.

    Eggshells...we are walking on eggshells in a minefield. That's what I keep telling myself, from start to finish.

    No, it's not a stretch.  Just look at all the drama it's caused in this thread alone.  It just doesn't have as great of an influence over players that have developed a much more mature relationship with the game.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #513

    AlCzervik

    Funny like a clown.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #514

    Stanya

    Part of the problem is not only the "loser" but also the "winner" comtributes to a stalemate. You can almost always go back and find perfectly reasonable alternate moves that  keep the other player from ending up in a stalemate. But yeah i see your point.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #515

    Monster_with_no_Name

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 10 months ago · Quote · #516

    netzach

    Monster I admired your fierce/acerbic campaigning style ! ( Also 9000 games at 10/0 !! )

    Look forward to the next one...

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #517

    Kens_Mom

    And here I was thinking that this thread had the potential to surpass Monster's previous stalemate thread, but it's about 250 posts short.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #518

    kgwkyle

    Saying stalemate needs to be abolished is a sign of a sore loser. No offense.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #519

    e4nf3

    Well, I suspect someone(s) above must have already said this...but I don't have the time/inclination to tread through all the noise...and, if no one has said it...then it is high time that someone did.

    Getting proficient at obtaining a stalemate from an ostensibly lost position is a skill. (Unless, of course, the supposed "winner" just screws up...which is often the case).

    For years now, I have had "to do" lists. I'm almost certain that: "Practice how to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse at your chess game." is somewhere on that list. Just above: "Call the cemetary and purchase a pre-paid "final services" plan."

    I actually admire people who have spent dozens, hundreds and even...in rare cases, I'm sure, thousands of hours on finessing a stalemate.

    They are to be commended.

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #520

    Here_Is_Plenty

    Actually e4nf3, in 559 prior posts I don't think anyone else actually praised the skill of the stalemater - you make a fair point.  The closest I think we came was saying that it could be result of sacrificial combination.  In the 2 games of Monsters that we looked at that seem to have sparked this tirade though it seems to be just a failure to win rather than a success at drawing.


Back to Top

Post your reply: