It's just part of the subtlety and attraction of chess. Why change the rules? The attacking side in a case of stalemate will have an overwhelming material advantage or attack; he knows about the stalemate rule (or should), and if he can't use his great advantage to deliver mate, why should he be allowed to win?
You might just as well change the rules to state that in an endgame K+R v. K+R+rook-P the side with the extra rook pawn automatically wins.
Sorry you had a draw man..
But as soon as you rack up a few draws of your own against a superior opponent in a superior position, you will never adaquately respect them.
I think this was the longest running thread on the subject:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stalemate-rule-needs-to-be-abolished
The bitter truth is this - if you place (or leave) your opponent in a position in which they can't move, it only shows you havn't been paying proper attention to your game & you deserve to lose it!
It's a vitally important part of the skill of playing chess to always leave your opponent with at least one legal move. As for the rules of this game, they've been formulated over several hundred years & if anyone doesn't like them, I suggest you're playing the wrong game.
Just so it's clear, this never happened to me. I'm aware of stalemate and I generally know how to avoid it, this isn't for personal gain.
Nobody has addressed the logic. I'm saying there should be less rules, not more. That's my point that this stalemate rule is arbitrary. You're always forced to make a move unless it happens to lose the game for you in which case it magically becomes a draw.
The other types of stalemate of which I'm aware make far more sense (50 moves without pawn move or capture and 3 repetitions - they're both a little arbitrary as well but it's clear what they're trying to prevent: endless games that aren't getting anywhere).
Maybe this is a bad example, but I'm pretty sure it was legal for men to basically rape their wives in England until a disturbingly recent time. Point being, there are lots of rules and lots of misconceptions that last a long time but which clearly made no sense in retrospect. Please defend the rules on the basis of logic, not tradition!
baddogno: Thanks I checked that forum and completely agree with the first post! Surely it's only a matter of time before they change this strange, misplaced rule! :)
Frantisek, you need to remember that the term stalemate applies only to the situation in which the player whose turn it is to move has no legal move & that in turn leads to a draw.
The cases of the 50-move rule & threefold repetition relate to drawing & not stalemate!
This may seem a pedantic point but it's still important. As for an entirely logical justification of the rule, I don't know how to give one - the rule was formalised in the 19th. century, before which the condition of stalemate was dealt with in a number of different ways.
I think many players feel that if you leave your opponent without a legal move, it suggests you've been inattentive so why should you be awarded the game?
Surely there must be a difference between the above position where the defending player is in check (mate) and where he is not (stalemate).
An initial point - chess as it is will not change its rules, there is such a rich history behind it.
There is however always an argument for creating different versions of chess if people find them worthwhile. The most obvious being Chess 960.
Question therefore is, would chess without stalemate be a worthwhile separate version. Personally I don't think it would catch on - stalemate adds to the richness of the game. New versions are really only attractive if they add something. There is a great video on Chess.com about games where the stalemate rule has been used very creatively to force draws in aparently lost positions. A key attraction of a game is where comebacks are possible.
I can stalemate with 2 knights and win????
mashanator:
The example of the legality of rape was only to demonstrate that laws/rules can at times be extremely outdated and illogical. Of course rape is terrible and of course it should be illegal. I personally think the stalemate rule IS broken.
Quoting the rules to me is frustrating as I know them. I'm disputing the LOGIC involved. WHY should it be "illegal" to move your King into check? I know FIDE said so but why did they? Why not also make it illegal to miss a checkmate you could have executed? Or why not end the game when you achieve checkmatemate/matein2 (whatever move they make, you mate them next move) instead of checkmate? Point being, those sound unnecessary so making self-checking illegal is just as silly.
The existing rules are generally fine, but I think the alternative makes far more sense - it shouldn't be illegal to self-check which mainly affects stalemates.
I'm open to reasons and discussion. If it's a dead topic, that's fine. But stubbornness and/or arrogance doesn't contribute. I don't think I'm the first, I'm just very curious and it stands out as bizarre to me.
stephen_33: Okay thanks, I thought most of those drawing rules were referred to as stalemates but whatever.
I'm not talking about inattentiveness. If you're inattentive, of course you should pay the price. But that's irrelevant. I'm disputing the rule.
Let's say there was a law that green shirts can't be worn on Tuesdays. Then someone says this is stupid, why is this a law? And everyone says, it's your own fault if you wear a green shirt on a Tuesday. Okay sure. But why is it even a law? Maybe there's a good reason. Indulge me!
RG1951: Yes there's a difference, but going by what I feel should be the logical rules of Chess, the result will be the same. In both cases your opponent makes a move and then you capture his King. Game over.
Algebraist: Thank you for the very interesting, positive contribution! :) Yes, alternatives are fun. However, you talk about adding richness to the game or opportunities for a comeback. That might not always be a good thing though. For instance, if you added rules like:
1) After 40 moves, you swap sides every 5 moves.
2) If one of your Knights captures three pieces in a row, you can move your King to any square on the board.
3) If your Knights are touching and your Bishops are touching, your opponent isn't allowed to put you in check.
These sound terrible to me but might technically add to the "richness" of Chess. Simplicity and naturalness are good as well and stalemate goes against that IMO.
Also, stalemate may detract as much as it adds. It just changes things. There are interesting things that could happen if it weren't a rule.
zschess:
Sure you could win with 2 knights. Maybe not easy, I don't know. Or, you could also allow players to pass their turn it they wanted which would change things, I don't have a strong opinion on that. If both players passed in a row it should be a draw of course.
the king is never captured. on here, this site, it doesnt allow you to move into check just because it dosnt. however, in the real world, escpessially at the GM levlels, your opponent does not have to say "check" you, as a player, are supposed to see it and if u dont i believe you automaticaly lose teh game (dont quote me on that). so the king can not b captured but moving into check in basically suicide on the game.
It's a board game and not some kind of simulation. I don't think it gets any deeper than that.
There is no reason why people can't play chess amongst themselves with some alterations to the rules. In fact Chess.com could help by setting up a diferent version but it would need to be clear that there was the demand for it.
As I understand it in this new version it would not be illegal to put your king "en-prise" under attack. If the king is taken you loose immediately. I guess this would also leave situations also where an opponent misses the fact that they could have taken the king so dont win!
This immediately gets rid of the stalemate.
If enough people want this version we could petition Chess.com to add it to their options! I'm not clear that it would be popular - would have to play it to see if it was worthwhile.
Stock answer: K+P endgames would be boring wins for the side with the extra pawn. Always. That's why stalemate should remain as-is.
Thanks Frantisek yes I think this debate has worth! I agree the alternatives you list sound pretty terrible! Basically because they are too arbitary. There needs to be a balance between simplicity and complications and chess does well in keeping that balance.
There are reasons for the stalemate rule - for example it comes naturally out of making it illegal to move your king into an attacked position. I think, back in the origins of chess, people may have found taking the king just too annoying way of loosing. Personally I'm happy with the stalemate rule but wouldn't mind trying an amended version to see how it worked!
Thanks Frantisek yes I think this debate has worth! I agree the alternatives you list sound pretty terrible! Basically because they are too arbitary. There needs to be a balance between simplicity and complications and chess does well in keeping that balance.
There are reasons for the stalemate rule - for example it comes naturally out of making it illegal to move your king into an attacked position. I think, back in the origins of chess, people may have found taking the king just too annoying way of loosing. Personally I'm happy with the stalemate rule but wouldn't mind trying an amended version to see how it worked!
It has already been tried, and did not work out well.
So the object of the game of chess is to capture your opponent's King, right?
No.
I think it's a weird rule, too. It does, however, give some hope to a badly outgunned opponent.
So ... when you have overwhelming firepower ... put the opponent in check with every move.
Old games have weird rules sometimes. But ... every odd twist to chess rules makes it a bit more fun than checkers ... in which an opponent who cannot move if defeated.
Hello! Sorry if this has been covered, very interested to see what people think!
There's one type of stalemate that I disagree with logically.
So the object of the game of chess is to capture your opponent's King, right? Some people will say that's not right, the object is to put your opponent into checkmate. But I see this as an arbitrary rule that only affects ridiculously bad games of Chess. Of course, we can make the rules whatever we want. But aiming for the simplest, most natural rules based on the spirit of chess, the object is simply to capture their King which they will try to avoid at all costs. So naturally in any half-decent game, that will involve putting them into checkmate anyway because they won't let you beat them any other way.
Moving on, in my opinion "illegal moves" that involve putting yourself into check aren't really illegal, they're just stupid and lose the game straight away. For instance, why isn't resigning considered an illegal move? Or letting them capture your Queen early on? Or allowing your opponent to checkmate you when you could have prevented it? It's arbitrary.
Anyway, that's not my problem because it doesn't affect games. The point is if you put your opponent into a position where the only moves they have available result in them being in check, you should win the game. It's their turn and they have to move, it's not your problem that all of their moves are bad for them (supposedly illegal). In real life if you surround an army and they can't escape is it a draw?!? If you're playing tennis and your opponent does something illegal and gets arrested and the match is called off, do they call it a draw?
What do you think? I know the rules are what they are but I feel this is an illogical way to end a game when one player had forced a win.
One alternative would be to allow a player to pass which makes sense to me (it would only ever be used in these stalemate situations most likely). In rare cases that would cause a draw if the material was insufficient to actually mate. Otherwise the attacker would most likely mate next turn.