I wish stalemate is a win
Sort:
the stupidest rule ever forever.
Um Actually I have a horrible day in chess 🤓
Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. Imagine you have a game in which your objective is to get possession of a bar of gold. You have finally found out where it is, and have surrounded the building in which it is kept in a safe. So the bar of gold can't be taken by anyone else, but you find that you can't break into the building, and even if you do, you can't open the safe to get possession. Should that count as a win? I don't think so.
magnumsicecream111 wrote:
the stupidest rule ever forever.
I smell a 200 rated player who stalemated an opponent in a completely winning position, playing on autopilot.
magnumsicecream111 a écrit :
the stupidest rule ever forever.
Would chess have been invented yesterday, one may have a right to voice such an opinion.
But it's not so: chess was invented centuries ago, possibly over 1000 years ago, depending on how one sees "what is chess".
Rules have been added and amended again and again, all over the places, until the game got fair and balanced enough, so prized tournaments and matches could happen, without too much someone complaining some rule or some other rule would be "stupid" or "unfair".
Alas, some folks can't help think as if the World began at their birth day, and everybody was waiting for them to finally get their eyes open over what is stupid and what is not stupid.
Last but not least, as we can state here AGAIN, someone will complain over a rule, without proposing any valid replacement, or, such as here, will propose just plain nothing at all. All of that out of no chess level at all, as if it was not enough.
HENCE
Dear OP:
_ You're the problem, chess rules are not the problem.
_ In no World are you the solution, nor a part of the solution, nor the beginning of a solution.
_ You and the like of you, are a one more plague people have to endure when trying to have some of a life in this brutal, cruel and unfair World & Life.
_ So, go hide somewhere in shame, thank you, etc.
Optimissed wrote:
Yes, stalemate should definitely be a win for the side which is stalemated. I completely agree.
This would be worse than the other extreme, and both of those are infinitely worse than keeping it as a draw.
I certainly wouldn't want to throw away a great chunk of chess history, just for... um, what exactly? What would any of those changes achieve? Nothing? Less than nothing?
Jan 23, 2025
0
#11
To begin with, I’m an 2000 rated player, not a newbie to chess. I totally agree with the argument of the topic. If you think I’m not “master” enough, let me tell you another player who thinks the same way: GM Nigel SHORT.
Here comes my argument:
Chess is a military game and its ultimate purpose is to kill the enemy king. If you can’t kill, or be killed it’s a draw, rule says. However, in military operations, not every successful ends by killing. When an army chases and surrounds the enemy, and if the enemy has nowhere to move, the operation is over and the winner is clear.
Whoever invented this stalemate draw rule 1000 years ago must have really put their logic aside. It’s such a stupid rule and has nothing to do with the general logic of chess.
Chess is a game of moves, and if one side is out of moves, they must lose. Move or resign, must be the correct logic. It’s rather unfair to be out of moves and split the point in half.
I believe some day will come and this rule will change. Maybe 100 years later our grandchildren will laugh at this rule, just like we do now, at the old forms of various games.
Here comes my argument:
Chess is a military game and its ultimate purpose is to kill the enemy king. If you can’t kill, or be killed it’s a draw, rule says. However, in military operations, not every successful ends by killing. When an army chases and surrounds the enemy, and if the enemy has nowhere to move, the operation is over and the winner is clear.
Whoever invented this stalemate draw rule 1000 years ago must have really put their logic aside. It’s such a stupid rule and has nothing to do with the general logic of chess.
Chess is a game of moves, and if one side is out of moves, they must lose. Move or resign, must be the correct logic. It’s rather unfair to be out of moves and split the point in half.
I believe some day will come and this rule will change. Maybe 100 years later our grandchildren will laugh at this rule, just like we do now, at the old forms of various games.
Jan 23, 2025
0
#12
Stalemate should be a draw. The goal is to checkmate and if you can't do that, you can't win.
Jan 23, 2025
0
#13
ookiiman wrote:
To begin with, I’m an 2000 rated player, not a newbie to chess. I totally agree with the argument of the topic. If you think I’m not “master” enough, let me tell you another player who thinks the same way: GM Nigel SHORT.
Here comes my argument:
Chess is a military game and its ultimate purpose is to kill the enemy king. If you can’t kill, or be killed it’s a draw, rule says. However, in military operations, not every successful ends by killing. When an army chases and surrounds the enemy, and if the enemy has nowhere to move, the operation is over and the winner is clear.
Whoever invented this stalemate draw rule 1000 years ago must have really put their logic aside. It’s such a stupid rule and has nothing to do with the general logic of chess.
Chess is a game of moves, and if one side is out of moves, they must lose. Move or resign, must be the correct logic. It’s rather unfair to be out of moves and split the point in half.
I believe some day will come and this rule will change. Maybe 100 years later our grandchildren will laugh at this rule, just like we do now, at the old forms of various games.
Here comes my argument:
Chess is a military game and its ultimate purpose is to kill the enemy king. If you can’t kill, or be killed it’s a draw, rule says. However, in military operations, not every successful ends by killing. When an army chases and surrounds the enemy, and if the enemy has nowhere to move, the operation is over and the winner is clear.
Whoever invented this stalemate draw rule 1000 years ago must have really put their logic aside. It’s such a stupid rule and has nothing to do with the general logic of chess.
Chess is a game of moves, and if one side is out of moves, they must lose. Move or resign, must be the correct logic. It’s rather unfair to be out of moves and split the point in half.
I believe some day will come and this rule will change. Maybe 100 years later our grandchildren will laugh at this rule, just like we do now, at the old forms of various games.
A win in the potential new rules. I guess black should resign in such a situation. There are certainly many more examples where 1 pawn advantage would be an automatic win, which is not the case today. Plus you eliminate those beautiful saves where you either allow stalemate by taking a piece or allow perpetual check.
Chess would be poorer with such a rule. All because sometimes people are careless. And with these new rules you reward them for it.
Jan 23, 2025
0
#14
the goal is to checkmate, if you can't do that, then you can't win barring resignation and abandonment. Simple.
magnumsicecream111 wrote:
the stupidest rule ever forever.
i think FIDE’s no jeans rule is probably stupider by a decent margin.
PennsylvanianDude wrote:
Stalemate should be a draw. The goal is to checkmate and if you can't do that, you can't win.
This. Sometimes it takes VERY clever play to escape with a stalemate. A draw is a perfect reward for the side escaping. Don't like it? Checkmate them instead to get the full point.
Jan 23, 2025
0
#19
Nah, I think we should give fair opportunities for the opponents to fight back in completely losing positions. Or else what's the incentive to keep playing? People would resign in a losing position.
