10234 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!
Someone is angry they were in a winning position and stalemated.
It's only a winning position if you're able to convert the win.
I think you need to do some research.
Are you sure it isn't you that needs to? Winning implies that you actually win, so the term "winning position" implies that the position was so adventagous to the player that they went on to win. Grob was telling you the distinction that a "winning position" is only such if the player actually wins the game, otherwise it is simply an advantage that they blew. It isn't his fault that words having meanings and he was informing you of it, you should thank him!
*sigh* How can people be so idiotic?
I know, right?
I'm glad we're all clear that Grob was right for pointing out your error. Carry on now, folks.
I like the stalemate rule. It gives the loosing player somthing to try and hope for and gives the wining player more of a challange in the end game. Seems like a win win rule to me.
Its really not my fault because anyone with half of a brain should've easily been able to pick up on the fact that I was being facetious. But I'll man up and take the blame lol.
ermergerd, somebody is actually serious about abolishing offside? Please tell me this isn't happening?
Its my fault. I used it as sarcasm in my previous post and people just went on about the ins and outs of offside which clearly wasnt my intention on a chess forum.
Well now you know better
TheGrobe is actually the one that's got his terminology mixed up. Regardless of whether a player is capable of converting an advantage to a win, a winning position is a winning position. For instance, in a K+Q vs K+R endgame the side with the queen has the winning position. Converting it to a win requires some accurate techniques that the winning player may or may not be familiar with, but it doesn't change the fact that the position is objectively winning for the side with the queen.
Well, it's not the draw itself that's the problem, it's top level players not playing for a win from the outset. Draws can be the result of exceptionally played chess and also of these "cop-out" games.
Again: they are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.
And again, if certain endings are well known to be drawish due to the possibility of stalemate, GMs know how to steer games toward or away from different endgames. If they are unable to achieve their aim, then that's a failure on their part, not a problem with the rules.
GMs certaintly know what endings are drawish, but there are so many of them that it is not sufficient to out play your opponent, but you have to completetly overwhem him to win. It is like if you could only win a boxing match by a KO, or wrestling match by a pin.
You reallize what you're talking about has nothing to do with stalemate don't you?
Of course it does. If the stalemate rule has the effect of preventing progress in an endgame, then it has everything to do with stalemate. The fact that you cannot force a checkmate with two knights is because in order to checkmate the king he has to be placed in stalemate first. The fact that You cannot win with a Bishop + rook pawn of the wrong color is because the opposing king gets in front of the rook pawn and cannot be chase out because any attempt to do so will result in stalemate. If you had a king + knight vs. a king, you can force a stalemate, but checkmate is impossible.
No its not. It is an advantagous position. When you play a chess game better than your opponent you get a more and more advantagous position until you most likely win. But that win is not certain until the game is actually won in which case someone might say "he got a winning position after move 34, and the rest was a matter of technique." To say "he has a winning position" while the game is in progress is claiming foreknowledge, that there is no possible way for it not to be a win, hence, winning. I know many people misuse the term these days, but it still doesn't make it right.
An endgame of king vs. king and rook is a winning position, regardless of whether the player with the rook knows how to deliver checkmate or not. If he doesn't and ends up drawing the game, that doesn't mean he didn't have a winning position; he did. He just didn't know how to convert that winning position to an actual win
This issue has gone on for awhile now. What do ya say we just chalk it up to the creator of this thread being a cry baby and move on lol.
That is an advantagous positon, not a winning one. I could likewise make the claim that after move 1 as white that I am "winning". But that obviously isn't correct, I am simply leading, or have an advantage. I don't know how else to explain this anymore without repeating myself so I'm going to conclude this with TheGrobe is right to point out to secretariatthebest the difference and secretariatthebest was wrong to tell TheGrobe to go research. Actually him and it appears others ought to. Moving on now.
Alright troll, move along.
1. Have people really been shouting at each other for 46 whole pages of posts? The internet is insane.
2. Maybe someone mentioned this, but it's often argued that abolishing stalemate (a sensible rule change if ever there were one -- why do so many people seem to think that the game can't change all of the sudden?) would lead to more boring chess. Because K+P vs K would nearly always be a win (instead of usually a draw), competitive players would be much more scared of gambiting a pawn for attacking chances. More generally, because endgames would be either won or lost, with very little chance of drawing, the game would become more about hoarding a material advantage and simplifying to the end game. Less climactic, less exciting. I don't know what to think of this argument, but it seems to make some sense.
Vandarringa has a point.
Even small changes to the rule of chess will alter theory on multiple levels.
It is not that easy to reduce an ending to a K+P vs. K. Pawn endings are generally a question of pentration by the King and taking position of a critical square. That would still be the case. Attackers generally rely on forced repetition of a position or perpetual check for a draw and generally avoid the endgame which would still be the case. I have always advocated that a stalemate be worth somewhere between a .75 win to .55 win. I tend to lean towards a .55 win which should give a would be attacker sufficient pot odds to go "all in". I am sure that Nimzovitch took all this into consideration when he advocated a change in the rule, as has GM Larry Kaufman who actively advocates changing the stalemate rule. It is hard to imagine top level chess being more conservative than it is now. In the last world chess championship cycle the candidate's consistently played very conservatively in the regular games reserving their novelties for the blitz tiebreakers. Take another look at the last World Championship match, if you don't believe this.
It's a winning position (king vs. king and rook) because the player with the rook will always win if he/she knows how to mate with a king and rook. You can't say you have a winning position with white after move 1 because there is no predetermined, formulaic path to victory like there is in a king vs. king and rook endgame. A player who has a forced mate in five has a winning position, regardless of whether he sees it, because there is a predetermined, formulaic path to victory.
Would you go so far as to say that a king vs. king and two queens isn't a winning position?
A winning position doesn't depend upon the skill level of the player who has it. If the player is of low skill, it just means he blew a winning position, not that a winning position didn't exist!
Bloody literalists. It was a not so veiled shot at the OP. I understand what a winning position is topically considered to be. It's the difference between a winning position and a won game I was poking fun at, more to the point, the inability of the OP to connect the two things up.
Alright, here's the definition from logicalchess.com:
"winning position - Any chess game position from which a player must win with accurate play. Many complex winning positions may still offer losing or drawing chances with alert play by one's opponent. It is unknown whether the starting position is also a winning position."
I hope this makes it clear to you that it doesn't matter whether the winning player is capable of converting the position to a win in a winning position.
Is the Caro-Kann the opening I was searching for or should I go for 1...e5 ?
by BMeck 4 minutes ago
by vdlschess 7 minutes ago
Does winning on time give less points than winning by checkmate?
by NM-Dale 14 minutes ago
Bad Day for the Heavyweight
by Expirc 14 minutes ago
12/8/2013 - Boxed In
by ManhidKa 15 minutes ago
Chess rating system
by Lolproductions 21 minutes ago
by NM-Dale 21 minutes ago
What is you favorite thing about Carlsen?
by JohnStormcrow 30 minutes ago
Draw by Agreement game won't close
by robjames 36 minutes ago
Anything else like Hack Attack?
by BorisBeastIvanov 37 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 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!