Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Stalemate needs to be abolished...


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #161

    Monster_with_no_Name

    TheGrobe wrote:

    At least that boxing comparison would make a little sense:

    Black to move -- who wins?

     

    If we change the rules to my variant... (capture the king)
    then black should lose that position because he would have to move the king down and whites king will capture it, ending the game.

    If blacks king were stuck somewhere else... then it would be for the reason that he cant move and his clock will run out.


    The reason: white could still win (because the kings can step into check, and the white king could still capture the black one if black were to place it adjacent to the white king)

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #162

    dawgface420

    TheGrobe wrote:

    At least that boxing comparison would make a little sense:

    Black to move -- who wins?

    I am not emotionally invested in whether or not the Stalemate rule should stand, but I AM curious as to how black managed to get that bishop onto that particular square.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #163

    waffllemaster

    dawgface420 wrote:
    TheGrobe wrote:

    At least that boxing comparison would make a little sense:

    Black to move -- who wins?

    I am not emotionally invested in whether or not the Stalemate rule should stand, but I AM curious as to how black managed to get that bishop onto that particular square.

    It doesn't have to be logical, it just has to be possible.



  • 2 years ago · Quote · #164

    TheGrobe

    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
    TheGrobe wrote:

    At least that boxing comparison would make a little sense:

    Black to move -- who wins?

     

    If we change the rules to my variant... (capture the king)
    then black should lose that position because he would have to move the king down and whites king will capture it, ending the game.

    If blacks king were stuck somewhere else... then it would be for the reason that he cant move and his clock will run out.


    The reason: white could still win (because the kings can step into check, and the white king could still capture the black one if black were to place it adjacent to the white king)

    Well now this seems pretty stilly, considering we award a draw in the case where one side runs out of time but the other side doesn't have mating material.

    In this case, there's no way White can win with the lone king, so if we don't award them the draw if Black runs out of time we certainly shouldn't award them the win.

    I suppose the draw on timeout rule would also need to be revisisted?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #165

    Monster_with_no_Name

    TheGrobe wrote:
    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
    TheGrobe wrote:

    At least that boxing comparison would make a little sense:

    Black to move -- who wins?

     

    If we change the rules to my variant... (capture the king)
    then black should lose that position because he would have to move the king down and whites king will capture it, ending the game.

    If blacks king were stuck somewhere else... then it would be for the reason that he cant move and his clock will run out.


    The reason: white could still win (because the kings can step into check, and the white king could still capture the black one if black were to place it adjacent to the white king)

    Well now this seems pretty stilly, considering we award a draw in the case where one side runs out of time but the other side doesn't have mating material.

    In this case, there's no way White can win with the lone king, so if we don't award them the draw if Black runs out of time we certainly shouldn't award them the win.

    I suppose the draw on timeout rule would also need to be revisisted?

    Man you are thick. re-read all my post, esp the parts in blue.
    Then go and sit in the naughty corner for 1 hour.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #166

    TheGrobe

    I think maybe you're the one being a little thick here.

    Let me clarify: If stalemate is a win for the side who stalemated their opponent, then the draw on timeout rule needs to be modified to consider "any series of legal moves leading to stalemate" instead of "any series of legal moves leading to checkmate".

    I'll be the one to take the high road here and stop short of being a patronizing prick.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #167

    Kens_Mom

    TheGrobe wrote:

    I think maybe you're the one being a little thick here.

     

    Let me clarify: If stalemate is a win for the side who stalemated their opponent, then the draw on timeout rule needs to be modified to consider "any series of legal moves leading to stalemate" instead of "any series of legal moves leading to checkmate".

     

    I'll be the one to take the high road here and stop short of being a patronizing prick.

    Actually, it should be "Any series of legal moves leading to a king capture" with the assumption that moving into check is legal.  Basically, a KvK endgame would be sufficient material for either side to win.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #168

    II-Oliveira

    Kens_Mom is right. If we accept NamelessMonster's suggestion, than King vs King is not a definitive draw. One king can capture the other.

    Whenever the position occured the players would make really fast moves until one's clock run out, or perharps one of them blunders and let his king be captured by the other king. That would be interesting to watch.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #169

    blake78613

    TheGrobe wrote:

    I think maybe you're the one being a little thick here.

     

    Let me clarify: If stalemate is a win for the side who stalemated their opponent, then the draw on timeout rule needs to be modified to consider "any series of legal moves leading to stalemate" instead of "any series of legal moves leading to checkmate".

     

    I'll be the one to take the high road here and stop short of being a patronizing prick.

    If the definition of checkmate was amended to include stalemate, then the draw on timeout rule could be left intact.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #170

    Yereslov

    It's hard not to be a patronizing prick when you are dealing with a whiny child.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #171

    Yereslov

    Either learn how to mate or quit chess.

    Avoiding stalemate is basic knowledge.

    Even amateurs know how to avoid it.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #172

    Kens_Mom

    II-Oliveira wrote:

    Kens_Mom is right. If we accept NamelessMonster's suggestion, than King vs King is not a definitive draw. One king can capture the other.

    Whenever the position occured the players would make really fast moves until one's clock run out, or perharps one of them blunders and let his king be captured by the other king. That would be interesting to watch.

    Assuming that it's standard time control (>60min per player), it's probably more likely that a draw would be determined by 50 move rule or 3 fold repetition before either player's time runs out.  However, this doesn't make the situation any less ridiculous.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #173

    Monster_with_no_Name

    Yereslov wrote:

    Either learn how to mate or quit chess.

    Avoiding stalemate is basic knowledge.

    Even amateurs know how to avoid it.

    You my friend have no idea what we are talking about.
    This isnt only about 5 queens vs king.

    Getting rid of stalemate has many deep, subtle and interesting (probably not your strong suit) ramifications.

    Seeing as you have a 1200 rating, I can see why your so convinced though that amateurs can avoid it.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #174

    Here_Is_Plenty

    The only time I can see stalemate being a factor, other than in blitz or after a long tiring 4 hour match, is when one player has a queen that he brilliantly offers in repeated moves as he has no king moves.  It does not have to be the result of oversight of a novice type, it could genuinely be after one or two sacrifices by the defending player.  I know its unlikely but I have seen it done.  Such proper use of resources should not be punished, stalemate has its place.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #175

    Kens_Mom

    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

    Getting rid of stalemate has many deep, subtle and interesting (probably not your strong suit) ramifications.

    Exactly, so why try to bring about such an upheaval that would ultimately change a completely functional game into something completely different?  Isn't simply creating your own variant a much better and practical alternative than trying to alter something already established?  I'm repeating myself verbatim from the other thread, but if you truly want to get rid of the stalemate rule, creating a variant would be the right way of showing the merits of abolishing stalemate to the "nay-sayers" that think it would ruin chess.

    If abolishing stalemate is truly an improvement to the rules, the no-stalemate variant would naturally become more popular than the current chess and eventually replace it as the mainstream chess.  I'm sure that's how the current rules were established centuries ago.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #176

    uri65

    Kens_Mom wrote:
    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

    Getting rid of stalemate has many deep, subtle and interesting (probably not your strong suit) ramifications.

    Exactly, so why try to bring about such an upheaval that would ultimately change a completely functional game into something completely different?  Isn't simply creating your own variant a much better and practical alternative than trying to alter something already established?  I'm repeating myself verbatim from the other thread, but if you truly want to get rid of the stalemate rule, creating a variant would be the right way of showing the merits of abolishing stalemate to the "nay-sayers" that think it would ruin chess.

    If abolishing stalemate is truly an improvement to the rules, the no-stalemate variant would naturally become more popular than the current chess and eventually replace it as the mainstream chess.  I'm sure that's how the current rules were established centuries ago.

    +1

    I am not a big specialist in chess variants, playing only Fischer Random and Bughouse occasionaly. But it's an interesting fact that the variant with stalemate=win either has never been created or has near zero popularity. IMHO it means that the idea is not appealing to general chess public at all.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #177

    blake78613

    Yereslov wrote:

    Either learn how to mate or quit chess.

    Avoiding stalemate is basic knowledge.

    Even amateurs know how to avoid it.

    Give me a break.  You are a class D player who twice in a row fell for the Blackburn Shilling Gambit .  You have never faced a player who knew how to play for a stalemate.  The great Samuel Reshevsky fell for stalemate traps twice in his career, and you couldn't begin to fill his shoes.  Until you have side stepped stalemate traps set by an expert like Larry Evans, it is rather presumptuous of you, to say you know how to avoid them.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #178

    nameno1had

    I think I am going to start a thread called:

    "Why players who think they are good, mess up and end games with a stalemate"

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #179

    AlCzervik

    Make sure you put it in "off-topic".

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #180

    Estragon

    Kens_Mom wrote:
    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

    Getting rid of stalemate has many deep, subtle and interesting (probably not your strong suit) ramifications.

    Exactly, so why try to bring about such an upheaval that would ultimately change a completely functional game into something completely different?  Isn't simply creating your own variant a much better and practical alternative than trying to alter something already established?  I'm repeating myself verbatim from the other thread, but if you truly want to get rid of the stalemate rule, creating a variant would be the right way of showing the merits of abolishing stalemate to the "nay-sayers" that think it would ruin chess.

    If abolishing stalemate is truly an improvement to the rules, the no-stalemate variant would naturally become more popular than the current chess and eventually replace it as the mainstream chess.  I'm sure that's how the current rules were established centuries ago.

    No, his plan is to win support by insulting people and generally showing what a stupid child he is.


Back to Top

Post your reply: