That's wild ngl
I wish stalemate is a win
Sort:
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.
Without stalemate, some 95% of the endgame theory goes straight to the wastebin.
Optimissed wrote:
Yes, stalemate should definitely be a win for the side which is stalemated. I completely agree.
I see you are collecting multiple down votes. At least that is one thing you are good at.
magnumsicecream111 wrote:
the stupidest rule ever forever.
Its not really the stupidest rule. But it may be a rule for the stupidest people.
Stalemates can actually be helpful in a losing position, is certain endgames, some of the players who can visualize the game 10 moves in advance can actually stalemate themselves on purpose instead of loosing.
Whoops, loosing not losing. 😅
I mean, in my opinion, stalemating is honestly harder to do than checkmating.