if chess becomes like that, there would be no beautiful queen sacs to mate in 5, or any sacrifices at all, for that matter. not to mention no more gambits, like the evans
Stalemate rule needs to go!
Sort:
grolk, all this is intented ironically to show you the inanity of your point, which is demanding a rule change because the rule favored you opponent once.
it wasn't me who wanted the rule change, though
I have an even greater concern than the stalemate rule. It would seem that chivalry is dead in such a male dominated world. Why, pray tell, is the object of the game to save the king? A true gentleman would make his first priority to save the queen. The fact that she has the greatest material value is a testament to this fact. Let us rise up and save the queen. Who's with me?
Learn to mate with all of that its super easy...
LongIslandMark wrote:
To be serious for a minute, hundreds of years ago one way to win was to capture all your opponents pieces - Think I read that on wikipedia somewhere, but can't find it at the moment. It may have been around when they introduced the rule that pawns can move two from their starting square.
In midieval chess, one way to win was to reduce the opponent to a bare king. The medieval chess pieces were much less powerful than in modern chess and a checkmate would have been very difficult to do.
I'm not convinced that stalemate provides more strategy. There is just other strategy: instead of stalemating to draw you could stalemate to win. Why does chess need more ways to draw?
It seems illogical. Stalemate is like this: imagine you are in a duel with someone. You are winning and he is getting tired. Suddenly he runs back and steps onto a landmine. It clicks: as soon as he moves it will blow up. Now if this was chess we have to call this a draw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#Effect_on_endgame_theory
Mar 16, 2013
0
#49
No, stalemate is part of the game. Same as if you had a king and your opponent has just a pawn and king. There are end game techniques you need to learn to avoid a stalemate. We can all agree with you that it's not fun to conclude with a stalemate, especially if you're winning by miles. But you don't win if it's a stalemate.
You're completely ignoring the point. It would still be part of the game, it would just be a win for the other side instead of a draw. For example, you could win (by stalemate) if you have two knights. Right now that is a draw. Which one is more logical?
Without stalemate=draw, there would be tactics to deliberately create stalemate in order to win. Anyway, it's easy enough for people to play with whatever rule they want.
Except it's simply false. You would still have draw by repetition, lone kings, etc. You would also have more openings become viable. And players couldn't trade down to a draw as easily. "Incompetent players", lol. So stalemate is the only thing which makes chess require skill? This is just obviously false.
I don't care if you like the stalemate rule. What I don't like is when people are too stupid to explain why.
without stalemate, chess can't be chess anymore. plain and simple.
"Can't be chess", "endgames would be pointless" this is just way overstating the case.
Endgames would still be endgames. Not every endgame hinges on stalemate. If an endgame becomes worthless to play then someone resigns. This already happens in most games anyway.
Stalemate is falling King's Salvation.
One thing no one has pointed out here is that OP's opponent really earned this draw. Game hopeless, got himself where his king couldn't move and tricked OP into taking all the other pieces. That game (if real) deserves to be called a tie.
He got you, man...accept it.
I agree, judging by astrodisaster and the OP's ratings, they don't have much experience with positions where stalemate is VERY important
and yea, I also thought it was pretty funny his opponent managed to give up all his pieces
#59 pretty nails it !
But otherwise : yes, we could take off stalemate, it wouldn't be the end of chess. We could also change the way pieces move because, huh, the knight, it's hard to vizualise you know... And the castling, what does it bring to the game ? Bah, nothing either.
We could also take off the pieces, make the chessboard spherical and in leather, and play by teams of ~10 that try to send it in the other team's camp without touching it with the hands. I'm sure people would be interested.
@irontiger
u should checkout the chess board they play on in the Big Bang theory.):
I don't get why all you guys are complaining about stalemates. 
They are just another factor in a chess game that you need to watch out for and take advantage of. 
If you are a good player you will never get into a stalemate unless you want to, or you can force a stalemate on your opponent. 
I think stalemates are nice to have because they keep everybody on their toes even when they are almost certain they have won; with stalemates around people will need to always need to think. 
Do you hate thinking? 
Yeah, and that stupid checkmate rule has to go too! The other day I was up a Queen, Rook, and 3 Pawns, and lost merely because my King was in check and couldn't get out.
i know right they should make it that the first player to reach a material advantage wins on the spot that should give everybody intiative to intitate the exchange!