I wish stalemate is a win
Sort:
Cats7322
Jan 23, 2025
0
#21
Agreed with magnum
Quack,quack!
Jan 23, 2025
0
#23
This post is just some kid complaining about a rule hated by the community and he wants to agree to look cool, but he's actually just making a joke out of himself.
Yeah, white should win this game:
Jan 23, 2025
0
#25
People couldn't agree on stalemate rule over the years.. and the rule changed shapes many times by now..
this is the last state of it, stalemate is a draw. until a next change.
Jan 23, 2025
0
#26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#History_of_the_stalemate_rule
Jan 24, 2025
0
#27
Awesomedude2053 wrote:
magnumsicecream111 wrote:
the stupidest rule ever forever.
The reason they posted this forum
fr... If they have more than 15 minutes in the clock they should not even complain about stalemate... This simply reflects time management issue.
ohnooooomyking69 wrote:
Awesomedude2053 wrote:
magnumsicecream111 wrote:
the stupidest rule ever forever.
The reason they posted this forum
fr... If they have more than 15 minutes in the clock they should not even complain about stalemate... This simply reflects time management issue.
Just look at the game. The dude has absolutely no idea how to checkmate with a queen, and there is a strong chance that he didn't even know about stalemate before that game. It's impossible to win with these conditions, no matter how much time he had.
Yes, stalemate should be a win.
Jan 27, 2025
0
#32
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.
ok... The first time you said that, I thought you were being sarcastic, but I guess you weren't. Also, there's a stalemate, how are you gonna split the point? The stalemated side hasn't been meted yet, and also can't go anywhere.
Jan 27, 2025
0
#33
Removing stalemate would be removing some beautiful tactics, you don't want to remove beauty right?
Jan 27, 2025
0
#34
stujudahboucek wrote:
This post is just some kid complaining about a rule hated by the community and he wants to agree to look cool, but he's actually just making a joke out of himself.
And he's 200
Jan 27, 2025
0
#35
FullTiltBunny wrote:
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.
I get it. It makes the game fun but shouldn’t they just get them next move.
Jan 28, 2025
0
#36
Qinshu111_the_chess_panda wrote:
FullTiltBunny wrote:
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.
I get it. It makes the game fun but shouldn’t they just get them next move.
That is the point. He does have the next move, but he can't make any legal one, while his king is not attacked. So, basically the side that produced stalemate lost the chance to checkmate the king, which is the goal of the game. Therefore, a draw.
Jan 28, 2025
0
#38
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
That video is not relevant
And you need to stop being an absolute keyboard warrior