17114 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!
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.
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.
Did you just completely skip my post?
All chess rules evolved to be what they are today for a good reason, to make chess more perfect. There have not been any rule changes recently because now chess is perfect. Come back in one thousand years and the rules will be exactly the same.
Stalemate is a rule because it makes sense. To win a chess player must checkmate the opponent's king. Stalemate is not checkmate, and stalemate means legal moves are impossible, so of course it's a draw.
"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our garden."
"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.
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.
Not having a chance to win and being defeated are two different things.
I'm sure he wasn't reffering to drawable positions.
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.
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.
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.
As if such threads even deserve to be taken seriously...
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.
Precisely. And it shouldn't seeing as stalemating with 3 queens means the 'winning' side is barely worthy of the half point.
Why ppl dont give rematch in live chess here?
by kadigabi a few minutes ago
What is you favorite thing about Carlsen?
by tubebender a few minutes ago
Chess Troll for the Year!
by ConnorMacleod_151 a few minutes ago
post your funniest illegal games here!!!!!!!!
by pastakinglegend a few minutes ago
A woman, a dog, a shotgun, a bicycle and a chessboard
by Lou-for-you 3 minutes ago
How someone wins a match without checkmate?
by waffllemaster 4 minutes ago
Blackmar Diemer Gambit only viable in rapid time or less?
by JohnStormcrow 4 minutes ago
Borislav Ivanov is Back! (AGAIN!!)
by expand 4 minutes ago
what do play against 1.e4 d5
by Lim_Lom_Sandpfote 7 minutes ago
Chess Sacrifice. ...??
by Tactical_Battle 9 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!