Because these are different games, each with their own rules?
Stalemate
Sort:
Apr 24, 2023
0
#3
HGMuller wrote:
Because these are different games, each with their own rules?
Yes
Historically I think it was turned from a loss to a draw. If one can say that, because chess did not evolve in a linear fashion. In the early days different areas of Europe used different rules. But until quite late there were rules where stalemate would be a loss, to punish not leaving your opponent any moves, which was considered impolite.
See for instance the Wikipedia.
Unlike both Shogi and XiangQi, Western chess rules evolved chaotically and different variants were created in different European countries. This is how both the stalemate rule and the castling rule came into being. It would be wise to give these rules away to make chess simpler and less draw-like. But chess is too widespread for such a fundamental change in the rules to occur.
HGMuller wrote:
Historically I think it was turned from a loss to a draw. If one can say that, because chess did not evolve in a linear fashion. In the early days different areas of Europe used different rules. But until quite late there were rules where stalemate would be a loss, to punish not leaving your opponent any moves, which was considered impolite.
See for instance the Wikipedia.
Dominating is considered impolite? IN MY WAR SIMULATOR GAME?
Woah so we playing woke chess now lol?
May 2, 2023
0
#8
wow
draws arent bad lol theyre the interesting third result (at low levels maybe 5% of games)
and w/o castling chess would be either a game of endless attacks or slow positional grinds
also historically castling replaced "the kings leap" which is... infinitely more complicated and up for debate
The reason stalemate is a draw in regular chess is because the opponent has no legal moves, but his king hasn't been checkmated so the only option is a draw. Even if the goal was changed to the king being taken so that it could move into check, that doesn't take into account stalemate where the king could not be taken next move and the player just cannot move such this position:
And of course you aren't going to say some stalemate positions should be a draw and others a win, so all of them have to be a draw. Stalemate being a draw has nothing to do with "keeping endgames fascinating" or the fact that the king has to actually be in check to win, it has to do with having no legal moves, king-related or not, so all stalemate have to be a draw.
TheChessInfinity wrote:
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY IS STALEMATE A WIN IN XIANGQI SHOGI SHATRANJ BUT NOT IN REGULAR CHESS
Different games, different rules.
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
The reason stalemate is a draw in regular chess is because the opponent has no legal moves, but his king hasn't been checkmated so the only option is a draw. Even if the goal was changed to the king being taken so that it could move into check, that doesn't take into account stalemate where the king could not be taken next move and the player just cannot move such this position:
And of course you aren't going to say some stalemate positions should be a draw and others a win, so all of them have to be a draw. Stalemate being a draw has nothing to do with "keeping endgames fascinating" or the fact that the king has to actually be in check to win, it has to do with having no legal moves, king-related or not, so all stalemate have to be a draw.
False. The king can move to Kd2.
Black is the stalemated one. My point was that black is stalemated even though his king can't be captured. Its not that black can't move his king to a "safe square", he can't move his king at all, or any other piece for that matter. The main argument for stalemate being a win is that it's the same as checkmate since the player would lose his king next move, but that's not always the case.
May 2, 2023
0
#13
"cHeSs iS a wAr gAmE" people: iTs a dRaW bEcAuSe tHe kInG iS iN a bUnKeR!!!
me: so if one type of stalemate "is a draw" and the other "is a win" then whats the point of rules
If stalemate was a win then a lone king could win on time whenever the opposing army included at least an a-pawn or h-pawn (well granted, not on chess.com because it doesn't use FIDE rules). Would you really want to see a situation where a side with its entire army loses on time against a lone king because it is technically possible for the lone king to take everything but the other king and an a-pawn and then trap the king on the queening square with the pawn one square from queening and the lone king on the c-file in the same rank as the other king?
The long king could trap every single piece, not just a pawn:
Yeah, white should really win this game!
Endgame, if being stalemated is a loss then take your diagram and shift the e3 pawn to e7 and the White King to h4. If Black flags then the revised stalemate rule would make that a win for White under FIDE rules (no matter how stupid the moves would be, the players can move to reach your position with Black to move). If being stalemated is a win (punishing the person doing the stalemate) then if Black flags it is still a loss because the players can move to reach your position with White to move.
PS, the position looks like it can be reached legally with the b3 pawn starting on f7 (4 captures), the d3 pawn starting on g7 (4 captures) and the e2 pawn starting on h7 (3 captures) leaving four captures that were not done by Black pawns (the initial a2 pawn could not be captured by a pawn).
Exactly, you could lose to a sole king, which is absurd. The common misconception is that stalemate is the winning side making a mistake, but it can just as easily be the losing side securing a draw. The other misconception is that stalemate "wins the king" next move, which is false as per my example above.
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY IS STALEMATE A WIN IN XIANGQI SHOGI SHATRANJ BUT NOT IN REGULAR CHESS