9104 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!
If there's going to be any abolition, make it checkmate. I'm tired of losing!
If a player cant make a legal move, his clock should be left to run out. (this is the logical conclusion when you take all the other rules into consideration) He cornered himself, commited suicide, he doesnt get a free pass. I cant choose to pass my turn at other times.
All too often in blitz with 10 seconds left and about to queen some disaster happens where the guy cant move and he is dominated. Logical things to do: lets give him 1/2 a point ??
To all the fools who want to comment: "your saying this because you drew a blitz game" of course it is you fool. But more to the point, also because stalemate is not a logical rule.
Please also do not say it is my fault that I let it happen. It is you who cant move, that is your fault. I can still move.
He can't pass his move either, which is why stalemate exists. If he could pass, you could checkmate him on the next move.
If he drew you, then he wasn't dominated. He continued doing his best at a game he would probably lose, and he outplayed you in the endgame.
If you really had dominated the other player, he probably would have taken the defeat and started another game, whereas you are upset about a tie.
Ask yourself if you actually like playing chess. It's a fair question, and "no" is a fair answer.
If you stalemate your opponent...you weren't really winning, now where you?
I notice the decent players with a real desire to improve post all sorts of questions and ideas for discussion and advice. Then you have the whiners complaining because they don't like the rules.
Take it to FIDE - they have a permanent committee on the rules, and it's their job to listen to stuff like this.
Stalemate gives losing people hope to keep playing onward. Do you want to take away the hope of chess players?
A huge number of people seem to have this strange idea that a person with 3 queens owes the losing person something. Can you explain to me where this mentality comes from?
Yes, they owe something. Unless the other side resigns, you must prove you know how to use your material advantage to win.
Most people can't win with K+N+B vs K, althought it is a 6 points avantage and a theoretichal victory. Never heard anyone saying it is unfair and trying to declare instantaneous victory. If you want to win, learn how to do it by the rules.
If you were not able to convert a 3 queens advantage in victory, due to stalemate rule, I guess you don't even deserve that half point. It is extremly easy to avoid stalemate in such situation.
2nd thought...it is challenging to KEEP stalemate from happening, that's a good point you just covered. It's a twist to perhaps a lost position? :) I can see that, and hey by golly, if Fischer thought it was ridiculous or Kasparov, I'm sure they would have made up a new game, without the 'stalemate" feature.
You're probably right. There already is the chess variant, "Fischer Random," which Fischer pioneered to mitigate the effects of opening memorization. I'm sure Chess.com would gladly make a feature to accommodate a no-stalemate variant of chess if it became popular enough, and one way to accomplish that would be having strong support from a world champion. Regardless, I doubt that there will ever be a no-stalemate chess world championship for the same reason that there currently is no Fischer random chess world championship. Moreover, I doubt that no-stalemate chess would ever be popular enough to become a mainstream variant of chess.
actually, there have fischer random world champions. I think Peter Svidler was fischer random world champion.
Huh, I didn't know that, and thanks for letting me know. I guess that explains why chess.com has a chess960 feature.
Well it's just a rule in chess. Nowadays any rule changes produces a new chess variant, not new chess. Maybe someday a variant gets so popular it eclipses current chess, and we call it the "new chess" or some other fancier name, but I dunno...
Please don't call people who don't like stalemate as sore, because if we allowed stalemate as a win then I'm sure we will get a bunch of sore losers crying for stalemate as a draw. Its just part of chess, just as stalemate win is a part of XiangQi(a chinese game similar to chess). Personally I feel that there is nothing inferior with both rules, but since I'm playing chess on this site, I'll stick to the current chess rules.
The strategy of chess seems to reflect war in real life, which makes it so interesting. The stalemate rule is therefore appropriate. In reality until the King or ruling faction is thoroughly removed there is always the possibility of a future comeback. Therefore, a total checkmate (or resignation) is required for a win. So a stalemate is exactly that -- an indeterminate ending, which must mean a draw. Pure and simple.
Judging from what I've seen on chess.com, that must be one of the most frustrating jobs ever.
R and K vs Q and K is also, technically, a theoretical draw. but just about near impossible to pull off otb.
I think you mean a theoretical win...yea. This ending often happens with 2 passers vs. a Rook. Usually the Rook gets at least a draw anyways haha.
no, I meant exactly what I wrote. rook and king vs queen and king is a theoretical draw believe it or not, but it's near impossible to pull off otb.
I don't get the joke.
This is what Fine's Basic Chess Endings says about Q vs R endings without pawns:
"This is a win, but from a general position the process is complicated.
In order to have drawing chances, Black must keep his Rook near his King, for otherwise a check will capture the Rook. The basic winning idea is to force Black into zugzwang, so that he will have to move his Rook away from his King."
The book goes on for another page elaborating on this idea.
To demolish your point with one sentence, what if there is no clock?
Well, first of all, this is a 4 man endgame, so with tablebases this ending isn't theoretical at all.
Secondly it is a win for the stronger side.
Oh, I see. You know it's won, but instead of saying: "it's not a guaranteed win" you say: "it's a theoretical draw"
When you say the result is a theoretical ______ it assumes best play from both sides. So it's not correct to say a theoretical draw. You can say there are drawing chances due to the technical difficulty or practical problems, but it's not even a theoretical position... it's been solved.
TBH, being able to force a stalemate is a hugely underrated Chess skill. It shows that you can work with losing pieces to achieve something. Without stalemates the endgame of chess just isn't any fun for the loser.
if he's stalemating, he's not losing, thus not a loser.
What I meant is, if there is no stalemate rule, and it is clear that you really have no chance of winning, than it is no fun for that person since they are just waiting to be the loser. If there is a stalemate rule, then even if you have drastically worse material, then it is still fun because you can try and force a stalemate.
hey judas you left your 30 pieces of silver in the stream go get them and let the adults talk about chess thanks
Firstly, it is Judas Maccabeus, a Jewish hero, not Judas Iscariot.
Secondly, I am 23 years old, which is probably older than you judging from the immaturity of your comments.
Thirdly, why the hostility? Perhaps my comments are dumb, it is possible, I have only recently taken up chess as a hobby. However, there is no reason to be so rude about things.
hahaha i love it i am being broken off by a jew hero thanks for keepin me grounded boss.
I was brought up told that I should hardly ever resign because there is often still a chance of winning because the other player gets excited about winning and then makes a mistake. I hardly every purposely put someone in a stalemate on purpose unless it's bound to be a draw anyway. I mean, who would give up a win or unknown conclusion for a stalemate?
Jebcc- No need to say stuff like that about Judas just because that's his name. I'm sure we could find someone with ur name who did something terrible too...but, we are not going to.
I think one thing that makes chess interesting is insistence! when the loser try hard to reach stalemate, the winner should be aware of ALL of his moves. you should avoid laze even if you have the best position and it makes the game more exciting.
FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified
by steve_bute a few minutes ago
psychic chess masters, UFOs, technology and civilization
by TheGrobe a few minutes ago
More Live Chess Help!
by TheBigDecline a few minutes ago
Why can't you delete a thread you start?
by kco a few minutes ago
Who has the advantage?
by macer75 a few minutes ago
Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?
by ollave 2 minutes ago
Looking for Online Chess Chess Tutor
by TheBigDecline 4 minutes ago
Shredder12UCI: left thinking for 9 hours after 1.e4 gave a sequence. Interested?
by VirtualMichael 7 minutes ago
You know you're tired when ...
by J_Young598 10 minutes ago
by owltuna 14 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com