10583 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!
Look dude, it's one thing to have a weird opinion, but quite another to expect everyone else to accept it, and calling them "dullards" and yourself "free minded" doesn't help.
ye dude, ye G, ye dawg....
tell me where im wrong...
Yes im adding a bit of spice to my posts... but your not adding any logic or arguements to yours. Stay out of it, unless you will...
You can pepper your posts with personal attacks on me if you show your logical arguement...
I'll explain this as simply as I can. From a purely objective and theoretical standpoint, your idea makes sense. The issue arises when you put it into practice. To be blunt, abolishing stalemate would completely ruin the game of chess. An extra pawn would basically always be decisive. All technical play, pawn sacs for activity, and fortresses would be out the window. The game might even be solved as a victory for white if that was the rule. Again, from a logical standpoint it seems that stalemate is the ultimate zugzwang and that the stalemated player should lose. But if you think about what it would do to chess, you quickly realize that it's not viable.
but on the other hand ... why should the person with the pawn down be rewarded for 1) being and pawn down
2) (more imporantly) not being able to move!
how about being punished for having an advantage? Like in these positions:
Stalemate is not just some "cheap shot" to avoid defeat. It's one of the most interesting finesses in chess, and the whole endgame phase revolves around it as a theme in many cases. Getting rid of stalemate isn't "Making those people unable to steal a draw", it's playing an entirely different game.
We discussed this already in the previous posts! Using the same eg
The person who is about to CAPTURE THE KING has the advantage... not the player with more pawns
I will simplify this whole thread for the dullards (Ill do your thinking for you)
Here is the problem:
In chess currently the rules contradict
1) you must *move* when it is your turn
2) it is illegal to *move* into check
in stalemate one of these rules will be broken!
What Im argueing for is that we replace 2) with the very simple "SIMPLY *CAPTURE* THE KING and the game is over"... now there is no more logical inconsistency!
Please actually THINK about this ! before you post a reply
Please re-read this post till you understand it!
Most people are just making silly comments without reading any of the history of the posts.
I've read it. You've made every point numerous times. IMO, it still sucks.
With the two rules you gave,
1)On your turn, you must make a move
2)It is illegal to move into check
STALEMATE DOES NOT BREAK ONE OF THESE RULES!
They don't move into check, they don't "not move". They do neither, as the game is ended, and it is not their move when the game is over.
Another point. Chess is not WAR, it is a GAME. As ReasonableDoubt said, though stalemate doesn't really make sense, getting rid of it would ruin chess. Chess doesn't even resemble war that much past the fact that there are two sides, each with an army. The rules don't have to logically make sense to any layman, they have to make sense in a way that makes a good game. As chess has been around for centuries and is as popular as ever, I'd say the rules are pretty good. Stalemate does not make sense in the most important way, that it works well with the rules of the game.
The reason that the "whoever is a pawn down in the endgame loses" idea is bad is that though it would work fine when patzers just take free pieces and whoever is left with more wins, without having to worry about stalemating cause they promoted a third queen when they shouldnt have, at higher levels there is a little more subltety, and if you're down a pawn, it might be bacause you sacrificed it.
All of this has probably been said before, but I think its worth repeating.
Excellent explanation! I don't know why it's so difficult for Monster_with_no_Name to grasp the idea that after stalemate (just like after checkmate) the game is over - nobody has to move.
I agree that the rule is not satisfactory. I would not go and change it though because it still is a minor occurance and would change the chess as we know it and cause confusion.
If I were to change it, I would change it as follows. If a player can't make a move, he won't make a move. Game continues.
I think the basic misunderstanding here comes from the fact that Monster_with_no_Name is trying to say that without stalemate the rules become more logical. But this is plain wrong. It has nothing to do with logic. We can modify any of existing rules - it won't make them more or less logical. Pawns eating diagonally are not more or less logical than pawn eating the way they move. Any existing chess variant is not more or less logical.
What we can talk about is harmony. But then it's a question of personal taste. I think existing rules are in fine harmony with each other. Monster_with_no_Name doesn't think so. I am afraid this discussion makes little sense...
I 've got my own idea for "new" chess rules: we should abandon not only stalemate but a checkmate rule too. You win if you capture all opponents pieces. So if my king was captured it's not the end - i still might be the first to capture his king and all his pieces. My loyal pieces and pawns will fight their guerilla war even after the monarch is dead. Now this is what I call real chess :-)
well. if you want to change the rule. then you could make your own game maybe it will not be called chess anymore. just as "go" may be an old form of chess. so maybe you want to make a "new" game. people still get to decide which game they want to play. you may not get a following if at all. then, again, maybe it will be widely accepted. today we still have choices.
most people have no idea what theyre talking about.
This would not drastically revolutionize endgames... not the technique... only some *results*, but not change technique.
pawn endings (which are effected by stalemate) are simple anyway... no loss there..
To the guy suggesting its "no ones turn" when its stalemate... i dont know what to say to such a person ??! What kind of rationalization is this ?? If we're playing and I just made a move... whos turn is it ? Answer: no ones, because i cant move without being mated.... nice.
Let me sell you some snake oil while we're talking.
It would make less draws, which is what chess needs.
Rules should not contradict each other and should be as simple as possible... thats the elegant solution. Exceptions to rules are usually inelegant...
the rule: illegal to move into check is the real problem... (this is what stalemate is) it causes many contractions.
ie to the "you have to move rule"
and also ... what happens over the board... when i move my king into check ? (touch move rule) do i lose on the spot (as should happen) or does the arbiter put the king back and i move again....
Players should be (and in stalemate should be FORCED to) move into check, and lose their kings. Its the simple solution.
When will the stupid stalemate rule be abolished?The goal of chess is to capture! the king. If the opponent is in a zugzwang where his only move will lead to the capture of the king why on earth is that stalemate ? Its very strange. (even more strange is the top level players unquestioning of this rule!)So one move before Im mated... my king has nowhere to move... why isnt that stalemate as well ?The only reason the two kings have to always have at least one square between them, is if they didnt the other king would capture the other and the game is over.
Stalemate always occurs when the opponent is really dead in the water... why dont we have a stalemate rule then for zugzwangs as well?
This stalemate rule we have is very silly ... especially for clever chess players... it needs to be changed.
LOL, this is as silly as the title impllied! Thanks for the laughs!
Hey, for what's worth, I'll accept your rule of no stalemate if you accept mine that pawns only move backwards - but the game has to be unrated. Deal?
I love it when you have one person who doesn't like a particular long-standing chess rule so they think it needs to be abolished. Kind of like when someone on here a while back was saying that castling is cheating.
well said clearly the topic creator got stalemated and is whinging and wanting it aboilshed
This is a very silly idea imo as it would change chess too much. K+p v K endings that are book draws ( due to stalemate ) would change and be lost now for the stalemated side. It would also be possible for the side with the pawn to actually lose if they are stalemated which would violate another rule of chess : you cannot win if no legal series of moves can lead to checkmate.
Monster_with_no_Name, would you please stop that nonsense about logic and rationalization? Logic is irrelevant here. We all agreed to play by existing rules and we are happy about it. You want to create your own chess variant - go ahead. Make a web site, federation, championships - whatever you want. When you do so drop me a line - I might come and play a game or two by your rules.
Unable to upgrade
by ironjesus 2 minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by Ubik42 2 minutes ago
Why hasn't Ivanov been banned yet?
by Wilbert_78 4 minutes ago
If you could combine two chess pieces powers what would the two pieces be???????
by JoshauMorris 5 minutes ago
Move that cause black to resign but could have played on
by SsPpIiDdEeRr 5 minutes ago
What's the Fastest way to win a Chess game
by SsPpIiDdEeRr 6 minutes ago
ღ HOW to make a POPULAR forum thread? ღ
by SsPpIiDdEeRr 8 minutes ago
Chickenhead Cut-off Ending
by Congruity 15 minutes ago
My first queen sac :)
by dr_militia 16 minutes ago
Reassess, my system, endgame
by Wilbert_78 18 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!