9183 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!
Im not the first and i wont be the last to let off steam about the stalemate rule, 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, Stalemate Sucks, rant over lol.
If you spent a second to think where his king could move if you're not checking it wouldn't happen. I've never blundered a stalemate.
I will admit that I think a stalemate being a draw is counterintuitive and even when you think about it, it still makes no sense. I believe it should be a win as well.
That said, a stalemate can always be avoided so even though the rule is somewhat silly, you can avoid the rule all together.
I don't think it's counterintuitive at all. It's a rule that you can't move into check and you're never able to take 2 moves in a row. If your opponent is not in check you aren't threatening to take the king and therefore can't win the game.
He is the one that should be thinking where ( his king ) can go, not me, if he gives himself nowhere to go due to me cornering him, why should i punnished ?.
Exactly, you cannot move into check therefore you cannot move therefore you lose. That makes way more sense than you cannot move into check, therefore you cannot move, therefore TIE!
Chess is modeled after war. If you had your opponent surrounded to the point that if he tried to move in any direction he would die, would you both reach out your hands and come to a truce? Or would the surrounded be defeated?
Like I said, the point is moot only for the fact that stalemate can always be avoided.
Which rule would you like to change?
You want the king to be able to move into check or one player to be able to take 2 moves in a row?
it is very strange, i can not think of any other game where your opponent can get a draw because he would have to fowl to carry on, ie fowl = illegal = he can not move = i can move = i win haha
If stalemate was = checkmate, the game would get alot easier to win... consider K+P vs. K.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "stalemate" Russian for D'oh!
Stalemate, which requires the winner to show a modicum of skill and allows the losing side to pull of miraculous, Houdini-like escapes, is one of the little quirks that makes chess so maddeningly attractive. Without these complexities, chess would have survived all these years; it would have been just another simple board game
Neither. The rule should be if the opponent has zero legal moves that he can make then he loses. Simple as that.
I know how easy it is to say "No these are the rules!!!!!!" but I don't think anyone is going to sit in this thread and argue with you about something that everyone knows makes no true sense and will never change.
dfitzpatrick: Nah, strategy would just change and adapt. Chess rules have changed before and the game continued on with great games being played.
Nope. Stalemate fits with the other rules of chess, and the objective of chess (to take the enemy king), losing if you can't make a legal move doesn't.
Well sure, strategies would change and adapt, but I would argue that things like the initial double move for pawns improve the game, whereas making stalemate a win would lessen the game due to changes in the endgame making it simpler.
Stalemate is a brilliant rule! (not trolling here).
If there wasn't such a thing as stalemate, then there would be no point of fighting on when down on material, and so it would be much less fun.
Stalemate can usually be avoided, so it gives an extra element for each player to consider, and I think that is a good thing.
(My first post.)
I think in the context of an untimed game, stalemate is naturally a draw (and I suspect that is the context in which the rule was made). Since one player cannot move, then the game ends prematurely (without a side losing their king).
However, in the context of a timed game, I think it makes more sense that the player that cannot move loses the game (by essentially running out of time).
Who plays chess untimed?
Haha, too bad! As long as you don't have the opponent's king trapped in the line of fire, it's your fault for blowing it.
well lets just say the rules are correct, but the principle of it is wrong, who want to play for a draw, we all play to win. take it like a man ( or woman ) and resign .
Don't you wish; to cover up your blundering.
5/17/2013 - Don't Be Too Quick
by paulified22 a few minutes ago
i can't escape chess but i must!
by AlCzervik a few minutes ago
I feel that I deserve a higher rating
by FN_Perfect_Idiot 3 minutes ago
5/18/2013 - Mate in 4
by MordoBrazil 6 minutes ago
Forced drawing line in the 2. ... Nf6 Scandinavian
by shepi13 7 minutes ago
by cinemachess 8 minutes ago
Solve this Riddle if you can
by Abinpdas 14 minutes ago
What is your prediction about Anand vs Carlsen?
by HotBoxRes 14 minutes ago
Initial Online Rating
by warrior2000 19 minutes ago
What format should we play??
by pdve 23 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com