11470 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!
Well black *is* on the verge of being checkmated himself, maybe that counts for something.
why would white have anything against stalemate in a queen+king vs queen+king position?...you're not very good at this are you?
Because Black just captured a piece with his Queen. If I'm not very good than you are terrible.
Without stalemate 90% of endgame theory would be irrelevant and almost all endgames would be routine and boring, requiring no skill to win. The game would be deprived of a great deal of its interest. I think it's a great feature of ourgame that without skill, force doesn't always win, and with skill and luck miraculous escapes are sometimes possible.
you seem to be missing my point. in order for me to capture all my opponents pieces, and manouver him into a position where he is unable to move without commiting an offence, i must have had some level of skill which has given me the advantage of the force. he has no pieces and no chance of getting me in checkmate, he has nowhere to go. we both start the game with the aim of getting a checkmate, he can no longer achieve this, and a rule that allows him to now claim a draw with a slice of luck, seems crazy, he does not want to admit defeat so uses a rule that allows him to sneak away untarnished, thats why i think it should be a forced resignation. its the sporting thing to do.
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
That said, a stalemate can always be avoided so even though the rule is somewhat silly, you can avoid the rule all together.
How does White avoid Stalemate? Black just captured White's rook with check.
What he meant was with perfect play it could be avoidable.
I agree with the op Stalemate in Shatrang (the original chess) was also a win,Westerners altered all the rules and destroyed the game :(
Since perfect play is unattainable it is hard to understand his point. Twice Samuel Reshevsky fell into stalemate traps. If it can happen to Reshevsky it can happen to you and me.
oh yes real imaginative play with a king left , and nowhere to go, sounds more like a get out of jail free card to me. i play to win, if i can not win i have lost. and i accept it. i would not feel i deserved to have a draw in that situation. i should loose. but then again i am a sporting man.
Neither. The rule should be if the opponent has zero legal moves that he can make then he loses. Simple as that.
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.
Not at all. Those rules are what causes the player not to be able to move and not being able to move is what should cause you to lose. It isn't that it "fits" with those rules. It is that those rules stop the player from moving and it should simply, and obviously, be that if you cannot move then you lose.
The objective of chess is to defeat the other player. And in fact taking the other king is not the objective of chess as you never get to take it, the game ends right before you would get to take it.
As I said earlier, chess was modeled after war. In war and move your opponent tried to make ended in their loss, then they already lost. The winning side doesn't say "Wait! He doesn't have any options, let's call it a tie and go home".
Because stalemate is an option, I will obviously use it. And I've gotten draws where I shouldn't have because that rule exists. It isn't that I'm all made because someone got a stalemate on me, the rule simply makes no sense at all and it makes far more sense for the opponent in the stalemate situation to lose, including myself when I've caused a stalemate to tie. I should have lost.
Your argument would have some sense if chess was modeled on war so closely that both players get to move simultaneously and can either choose to move or not move at any time (that's how war is). But chess isn't played that way. It is fundamental to the game that players take turns and that play continues until one player could capture the opponent's king on the next move regardless of what the opponent plays (or one player resigns or a draw is agreed, etc.).
If you want stalemate to be a win, you are asking that one of those two rules be changed, since a win on stalemate would be equivalent (in terms of stopping before capturing the king on the next move) to stopping before your opponent chooses to skip a turn and you would capture his king, or stopping before you would have chosen to make two moves in a row and capture the opponent's king.
...as Scottrf basically said already.
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.
Says everything that needs to be said about the topic.
"If you want stalemate to be a win, you are asking that one of those two rules be changed, since a win on stalemate would be equivalent (in terms of stopping before capturing the king on the next move) to stopping before your opponent chooses to skip a turn and you would capture his king, or stopping before you would have chosen to make two moves in a row and capture the opponent's king."
sapient: What you and scott don't seem to get is it doesn't prevent those rules in any way shape or form at all. It would be a rule on condition that if the opponent has no legal moves he loses. In order for that to work those rules HAVE to stay, not change. Having a stalemate be a win WOULD NOT ALTER EITHER OF THOSE RULES. It is complete erroneous to think that it would.
He avoids it by not getting into that stalemate by playing properly before it ever gets to that moment. You can't put in a position and then say how does white avoid this. You'd have to post an entire game and ask how does white avoid this and look through the game to see where he should have played differently.
It's interesting that none of the great players in the history of chess have ever seem to have suggested getting rid of the stalemate rule
How many great football players back in the day suggested that they should wear helmets? They actually tended to say the exact opposite.
Typically anytime someone is great at something they don't want it to change as they love how it is. Yet over time things change despite this. Games change, sports change, language changes. So it isn't the best argument.
That makes sense: Lasker, Capablance, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, they're like a bunch of old-time Jocks, too dumb to put on a helmut. None of them were ever clever enough to see this enormous defect in the chess rules. But you do! Well done.
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.
Not ture. There are many wonderful drawing resources in endgame positions utalizing the idea of stalemate (although I agree the idea of the draw result is counter intuitive).
This next position was from a real game, although the game itself continued with many blunders. This shows best play as given by Dvoretsky (I trimmed down his notes).
Nimzovich suggested getting rid of the stalemate rule. He said that chess was like a race in which you had to win by 10 seconds or it was a draw. While Capablanca didn't suggest doing away with the stalemate rule, he had even more radical suggestion to avoid the death of chess by draw. Capablanca proposed adding new pieces and having a bigger board. Fischer suggested shuffling the pieces randomly.
but neither Fischer or Capablanca were worried about stalemates, they were worried about the uncontrolled growth of opening theory that was turning chess into a memory contest.
Fischer's main worry was the uncontrolled growth of opening theory, but that was not Capablanca's main concern. Capablanca felt that the level of chess technique in general was so strong that you could outplay your opponent completely and still not be able to win the game. Capablanca's solution was more stronger pieces. Nimzovich's suggestion to make stalemate a win was in response to Capablanca's and other radical suggestions. Nimzovich said that you didn't have to make such radical changes to chess. All you had to do was change the stalemate rule, and there would be less draws, but you would still be playing essentially the game of chess.
How to detect cheaters in OTB tournaments
by zBorris 4 minutes ago
5/21/2013 - The Power of Imagination
by Aly3796 5 minutes ago
Do you consider the Turk (machine) to have been Cheating?
by RCA_U 6 minutes ago
Should I play more than 1 opening white?
by Elite_Spartan 6 minutes ago
Would it help to bring a mirror to a chess game?
by ilikeflags 10 minutes ago
by kantifields 13 minutes ago
Unfair checkmate hint?
by Doggy_Style 45 minutes ago
NEW TITLE IN CHESS!
by chasm1995 46 minutes ago
Please analyze this game for me!
by jonnin 46 minutes ago
Jobs on Chess.com
by jaguar311 46 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com