FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Think about it like this, if the white player was allowed to move again after the move that would have been stalemate, and they cannot take the black king. Then the game ends and it is a draw.
Bottom line is that these rules are rules and you should learn about them or play a different game. Complaining will do nothing as these rules have been here and been supported for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Is this another thread about why stalemate should be a win?
rules can be changed, to just say "rules are rules if you dont like em play a different game" is just plain stupid. if you took this mindset then we would have never progressed beyond shatranj, and let me tell you....chess has come a long way with the rule changes. why all of a sudden are rule changes pariah?
Even if they can be changed, the rule that stalemate should be a win for the person who triggered the stalemate is illogical for chess. Chinese chess and chess are two different things.
And only if the OP learned more about the Chess game. Maybe if that happened, all this useless quarrel could've been avoided.
Given that, I suspect trolling was involved.
Why did I get a stalemate when my last move put their king in checkmate?
43. Qg3 is simply a patzer.
rules can be changed"
Is it possible to feel such difficulties to catch such utmost simple point? Or is it the famous "as blind as the one who don't want to hear"? So let me clarify it (probably for the last time as there would be no use to go further).
Rules can be changed. They ARE changed very often (tournaments rules, world championship rules, these change all the time).
But they are NOT changed by a newcomer who don't understand the ****** endgame subtility and it's niceties and whine "blahblahillogicalblahblah" on a forum after he missed an easy victory after a big blunder. It's really a pity that someone had to EXPLAIN such obviousness. Of course game's rules DO change and WILL change again and again. But imagining that you arrive on a forum with an idea like "stalemate draw is not logical let's change it", whining to get a victory etc and assuming that no one ever had such brilliant idea like you in the past few centuries and that now all the chess community should listen to YOU the "new rule-genius" is extremely pathetic. To be polite.
The fact is all these ideas OF COURSE have already been discussed by people much smarter and cleverer than you and me, much more aware of chess subtility and mechanisms and they took long time to decide what would be best. When a beginner arrives and imagines he understands all better, you know... It's really farcical, looks more like a jester's last fool day's idea.
See, when you know almost nothing about a game and you don't understand why a rule is the way it is, and the game is a few thousands years old and has attracted many of the most clever minds over the world during all these years, it's better to ask "why is the rule like this?" (many people will be nice enough to explain) than claiming you know better. But after all, you just do what you want, there is no offence in behaving like a self-important conceited immature child to anyone... except for the one who do have such behaviour. Other will laugh and --at the beginning-- try to explain politely. But if you even insist after explanations... I guess they'll start getting annoyed. Like that :
557 : "Given that, I suspect trolling was involved."Could be it...
Now before some other Troll goes on Google (sometimes Trolls turn suddenly google-frendly when it comes to piss-off) and find some great players defending the stalemate as a win... I don't MEAN that it would be a bad idea to change this particular rule. There are some real reasons for doing so. Not that I support it, but I respect the professional people who sometimes support the idea to oppose the increasing draw tendency. I DON'T KNOW if this would be a good rule or not, I just let the professional discuss the point seriously. But what I know for sure is the argument "whhinewhhhhiiiineIlostthegameit'sillogicalblahblah" is not worth being mentioned on a forum. It's just ridiculing those doing so, period.
EndGameStudier : "Is this another thread about why stalemate should be a win?"
No no! Don't worry this thank-goodness is not. There have been no mention of any real argument for this. Only some lost-by-stalemate troll's whinings.
Note : Not a fan of humiliating argues on forums but after many people trying to explain very politely and wasting their time as their efforts get rewarded by contempt only, and after more and more insistence, crude reality sometimes ends up being told.
I can't believe people necro-bumped this thread and now it is so active. I guess the Hot Sauce Devil (me) is just as guilty, jaja:/
JERE is a suggestion if not liking stalemate: Use jouse rules! Chess is a board game like any other, so this is possible in person. Why not just find someone who will agree to a "no stalemate" game and play them?
One of my personal rule changes/jouse rules is that pawns can only promote to a piece that has already been captured. In other words, no extra queens (also, the square which the pawn promotes on is what determines the color of the bishop, if promoting to bishop). This can add a lot of strategic depth and I wish it was an option online even though I am not jolding out jope..
do you not have an h key?
Do you not jave Buffchix-Sensitivity training?