13403 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!
Black wins and gets the brillancy prize.
Let's say we get into this theoretical position. How would you solve it without the stalemate rule? (Yes, this might never happen in a real game, just consider it a "study position")
It looks more like a go position Well, black is controlling more territory here...
So, if we use Go rules, why don't we consider white's pieces as "prisoners"?
Stalemate is so important in endgames. It makes a lot of otherwise lost endgames drawable. This makes chess a more interesting game, as material sacrifices won't necessarily lose the endgame.
I think you are going a little to far in saying that the stalemated side should be forced to move their king into check. After all, this isn't always possible.
As I said before, when in stalemate, the player must break one of the rules of the game (i.e. You cannot move your own king into check, and, you MUST move.)
Therefor, when one player must break a rule of the game it seems very logical for the stalemated player to lose the game.
No rule is broken, nobody must move - the game is already ended!!! You don't oblige somebody to move after a checkmate, do you? It's same here just with different outcome.
Exactly. You can't make an illegal move no matter what nor can you be forced to. No one can legally make a move so the game is drawn.
As I read the posts, part of the problem is that many (not all) of those who wish to abolish the 'stalemate' rule are equating material or material advantage with winning. I have won many a game were I was down material. In addition many of the players who promote pawns are down in material before they promote. Material in chess is not the same as points in a game. It is closer to time of possession. In soccer (football to those outside the US) or football time of possession is an indicator, but not the deciding factor. Let us not forget soccer (the most popular sport in the world) has many draws, even though one side appears to have outplayed the other.So just because you are up a pawn (ex: King and Pawn vs King) does not mean you should win or deserve to win. You need to put your opponent into checkmate!!! If you cannot successfully do that, you do not win.
Material in chess is not the same as points in a game.
In the 2011 Candidate's Tournament there were 27 draws out of 30 games. If that happened in the World Cup you would see some rule changes in soccer.
Personally, I think that changing the rules to make a stalemate a win is a less drastic measure than having important matches being decided by sudden death blitz playoff.
There are already some rule changes in some tournaments in order to avoid so many draws. One is Sofia Rules - agreed draws prohibited. Another is scoring system like 0 for loss, 1 for draw and 3 for win. However those changes don't modify the essence of game.
I know you are being sarcastic, but 3/4 point for a stalemate seems like an idea for serious consideration. It would be similar to wrestling meet where you get so many points for a pin and less points for winning a decision.
That means the game can have 5 different results instead of 3. "How was your tournament?" - " Well I had 2 wins, stalemated 1 game, 4 draws, was stalemated in 2, and lost 1"
Sounds better than, "How was your tounament?" " Same as yours, no wins, no losses and 10 draws."
The stalemate just gives even more awesome sides of chess, because of all the amazing tactics there is with it.
I hate that knights move in an L-shaped pattern. We need to change the rule so that they move in a V- or S- shaped pattern. And anyone who disagrees with me isn't thinking logically.
If you're referring to me, I'm just being sarcastic. I actually think it would be better if knights moved in an R-shape.
check out the 1st user comment below the articles
Looks like there are more and more of us
"Death Match 14: GM Moradiabadi vs GM Zherebukh - Hosts IM Rensch & Co!"
Mate in one
by EricFleet a few minutes ago
How to improve chess game????
by TheBishop35 7 minutes ago
stuck pieces and not being able to attack other pieces
by conejiux 7 minutes ago
5,000 Signs You Don't Know Enough About Chess
by 11qq11 7 minutes ago
by peruh 8 minutes ago
Bought:Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games"
by ViktorHNielsen 9 minutes ago
by BhomasTrown 10 minutes ago
Free Premium membership time from referral?
by jmpaul320 14 minutes ago
Would appreciate some feedback on 2 games (USCF 1600)
by xjian77 15 minutes ago
5/19/2013 - Mate in 2
by Aly3796 15 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com