Not having a chance to win and being defeated are two different things.
Stalemate Sucks.
Sort:
paulgottlieb wrote:
Why would he admit defeat? Through your own incompetent play you have destoyed any chance of ever checkmating him. Although you may have had "some level of skill," it wasn't enough to do the job.
The stalemate rule is the bane of the unskillful and the delight of people who love imaginative play
100% If you stop concentrating in a game where concentration is required from start to finish and your opponent ends up getting a draw by stalemate or a three-fold repetition, it's nobody's fault but your own. I can't imagine any decent player that would prefer a loss when a drawing opportunity presents itself.
Have you considered quitting Chess and taking up Checkers?
You accidentally stalemated someone, didn't you?
Chessponge is completely right; chess is like a war. Would it make sense to say it's like the king is hiding? It's like the pieces that attack the kings surrounding spaces are only searching around him, and if the king unveils himself (but knowing that he can't) he'll die. But I guess since the king can't "die" he never really gets "found" and he's not captured or anything. A tie would kind of make sence.
AnthonyCG wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
AnthonyCG wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
KATKINSKIRK wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Nobody plays for stalemate if they can still win, it's to save themselves from losing.
But i am trying to understand the mentality of the player that clearly can not win, and will play on and hope to survive to gain a stalemate. in that instance is it not the sporting thing to say to yourself, ok i have been outplayed and beaten on this occassion, i will show my respect and resign
But you haven't been outplayed if your opponent doesn't have a way to win.
I don't think you understand endgames, improve your endgame ability and come back to the topic.
"But i am trying to understand the mentality of the player that clearly can not win..."
What's your point?
I think you tried to make me look silly without holding the crucial ability of comprehension.
"But you haven't been outplayed if your opponent doesn't have a way to win."
That was not Kirk's point at all... He is talking about dead lost positions.
He didn't say that, and it's wrong for you to presume it now to worm your way out of a hole you dug.
His posts were to abolish the stalemate rule, not to abolish it in 'winning positions', and nowhere has he made a distinction.
"having manouverd your foe into a position where he is unable to make a move, without him effectively fouling, or should i say making a legal move, he can then claim a draw, and he, yes i said he is the one who can not move because of your positioning, its his turn he can not move, i should claim the victory"
Clearly applies to 'drawn' positions just as much as winning ones.
I have been talking about drawn positions all along, and nowhere has he said 'there it's fine to play for the draw'.
Chessponge is completely right; chess is like a war. Would it make sense to say it's like the king is hiding? It's like the pieces that attack the kings surrounding spaces are only searching around him, and if the king unveils himself (but knowing that he can't) he'll die. But I guess since the king can't "die" he never really gets "found" and he's not captured or anything. A tie would kind of make sense.
AnthonyCG wrote:
Hole I dug?? This is the internet friend and I don't take it half as seriously as that nor have I even been following all 100 posts like you obviously have.
Perhaps I presumed it because I honestly didn't think that anyone could think that the stalemate rule could possibly be wrong in every single situation?? NAH NO FREAKIN WAY MAN!!!
Well if he does think that then I was wrong and you will be receiving your medal in the mail.
Yes, he was arguing with posts discussing the impact on endgame theory.
I await my medal.
Yep, that's exactly what he thought. And even if he didn't, what would his proposed rule change be? No rule can distinguish between a K+P vs. K stalemate and a K+3Q vs. K stalemate.
MaartenSmit wrote:
Yep, that's exactly what he thought. And even if he didn't, what would his proposed rule change be? No rule can distinguish between a K+P vs. K stalemate and a K+3Q vs. K stalemate.
Precisely. And it shouldn't seeing as stalemating with 3 queens means the 'winning' side is barely worthy of the half point.
That seems oddly offtopic.
To stay on topic, I think there's nothing more to say. The rule of stalemate has been explained and 'justified'. Ignorant fools who still want to get rid of the rule will probably just remain ignorant fools.
CHESS .COM POSTS RULES===SEE SITE MAP
That seems oddly offtopic too.
Here's what comes to mind in terms of why somebody might keep playing when their opponent clearly has an advantage. To me, it depends upon the relative levels of yourself and your opponent. Sometimes, even though you are down pieces, the moves to put you in checkmate can be tricky, depending upon which pieces are left, and the positioning. There might be a very specific set of moves your opponent must make (with very little margin for error) in order to checkmate you. For an opponent who has demonstrated that they are skillful (or at least moreso than me), and yeah, are able to find the appropriate moves, I would probably resign. However sometimes you don't know if your opponent will be able to find those moves, and it is very likely he might blunder away his advantage into a draw. I would keep playing there. I've been on both sides, where I completely threw away a huge advantage through mistakes, and come back to have my opponent resign after throwing away his advantage.
As they say, "it aint over till the fat lady sings", and at my level, anything can and does happen-the tides can turn really quickly.
Yeah stalemate is counterintuitive. If you dispensed with check/checkmate rules and just had white try to capture black's king, then if black is in "stalemate" any move he makes he gets captured. So he should lose.
However there is an exception: in some unusual stalemate positions, the king is in no danger of being captured even if he could move into check. These positions should just be draws. See http://www.chess.com/forum/view/more-puzzles/solo-stalemate
Hah! I was trying to think of such a position in my head and convinced myself it didn't exist! Thanks for that one :)
madhacker wrote:
One of the things that seperates the ordinary from the great (not just in chess, in all sports) is the ability to play badly and still get results. Great players don't just give up if they've got a difficult position, they keep fighting and often find a way of salvaging something.
By your logic, Man Utd should have thrown the towel in after 85 minutes in the 1999 Champions League final, because they were losing and had been outplayed for the whole game.
man u still had a chance, im talking about the chess player who can not win. i think i may be on another planet here,
And yes maartensmit i read it. dont think you get what im trying to say either. and what is scottrf going on about he did not get it as well.
So write an autobiography. Maybe then we'll understand what you're talking about.
i dont think i will waste my time. i cant simplyfy it anymore than i already have done.
No he wasn't.
He was talking about when you cannot win, which isn't the same as dead lost. As I said, reading comprehension.
If I have a king vs king and pawn, I clearly cannot win, but if I have the opposition I'm not dead lost.
That's the sort of situation when you will play on for a stalemate without a chance of winning. He thinks if you can't win then you should resign because you've clearly been outplayed.