Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Stalemate Should Stay !


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #41

    electricpawn

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 2 years ago · Quote · #42

    bigpoison

    electricpawn wrote:
    [COMMENT DELETED]

    Let me help ya' with that:



  • 2 years ago · Quote · #43

    ChazR

    ...zugzwang...sounds like my last affair...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #44

    BorgQueen

    Excellent point BlessedStar!!  How could you judge that game without the stalemate rule!?  Both sides are stalemated!

    "Passing the move" definitely doesn't work!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #45

    lollolbuddha

    What do u mean stay,This stupid rule was invented by stupid people who murdered the real chess.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #46

    Last_Sire03

    If there were no stalemates, then by definition there wouldn't be draws :P

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #47

    BorgQueen

    Last_Sire03 wrote:

    If there were no stalemates, then by definition there wouldn't be draws :P

    Hardly.  Draw by insufficient material, agreement or repetition are valid draws and have nothing to do with stalemate.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #48

    blake78613

    BorgQueen wrote:
    Last_Sire03 wrote:

    If there were no stalemates, then by definition there wouldn't be draws :P

    Hardly.  Draw by insufficient material, agreement or repetition are valid draws and have nothing to do with stalemate.

    Actually draw by insufficient material often does have something to do with stalemate.  Draw by repetition and agreement can have something to do with stalemate.  It is safe to say that without the stalemate rule there would be a lot less draws, which some of us think would be  a good thing.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #49

    Argonaut13

    If you can take the king, then there wont be check or checkmate ( because why would you say check when you are trying to take the king) and stalemate. It will just defeat the purpose of chess and make it boring.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #50

    blake78613

    RavenWarrior wrote:

    Hmm. What did they do before that?! (for stalemate)

    From the Wikipedia:

     

    Assume that Black is stalemated. Throughout history, a stalemate has at various times been:

    • A win for White in 10th century Arabia (Davidson 1981:65) and parts of medieval Europe (Murray 1913:463–64, 781) (McCrary 2004:26).
    • A half-win for White; in a game played for stakes, White would win half the stake (18th century Spain) (Davidson 1981:65).
    • A win for Black in 9th century India (Murray 1913:56–57,60–61), 17th century Russia (Davidson 1981:65), on the Central Plain of Europe in the 17th century (Murray 1913:388–89), and 17th-18th century England (Murray 1913:60–61,466).[19] This rule continued to be published in Hoyle's Games Improved as late as 1866 (Sunnucks 1970:438).[20]
    • Not allowed. If White made a move that would stalemate Black, he had to retract it and make a different move (Eastern Asia until the early 20th century). Murray likewise wrote that in Hindustani chess and Parsi chess, two of the three principal forms of chess played in India as of 1913 (Murray 1913:78), a player was not allowed to play a move that would stalemate the opponent (Murray 1913:82,84). The same was true of Burmese chess, another chess variant, at the time Murray wrote (Murray 1913:113). Stalemate was not permitted in most of the Eastern Asiatic forms of the game (specifically in Burma, India, Japan, and Siam) until early in the 20th century (Davidson 1981:65).
    • The forfeiture of Black's turn to move (medieval France) (Murray 1913:464–66) (Davidson 1981:64–65), although other medieval French sources treat stalemate as a draw (Murray 1913:464–66).
    • A draw. This was the rule in 13th century Italy (Murray 1913:461–62) and also stated in the German Cracow Poem (1422), which noted however that some players treated stalemate as equivalent to checkmate (Murray 1913:463–64). This rule was ultimately adopted throughout Europe, but not in England until the 19th century, after being introduced there by Jacob Sarratt (Murray 1913:391) (Davidson 1981:64–66), (Sunnucks 1970:438).

Back to Top

Post your reply: