A stalemate typically occurs when the player to move has no legal moves (all pieces are blocked or cannot move) the player's king is not in check but also cannot move to a legal square...since chess rules state that a player must make a move on their turn, but they have no legal moves available, the game ends in a draw
How is this a stalemate?
Sort:
ellipsis_GG hat geschrieben:
Ysegrim wrote:
ellipsis_GG hat geschrieben:
Ysegrim wrote:
Sorry, no win. You missed the goal, even though you are very close.
Here is another analogy why:
Lets assume you are in the garden under an apple tree and you are hungry. There is an apple hanging on the tree but you can't reach it.
Would you argue that you are no longer hungry, because the apple can't escape?
'Sometimes' you have to accept reality
Nah... because its a war game, not picking apples... surround is perfectly viable strategy. I mean, For most cases, it is better than direct confrontation, as it leads to surrender.
Yeah, its a skill issue, not being real about it.
Hmmm, Analogy did not work, but i guess i found the problem.
You assume, that surround leads to surrender, but that is wrong. Only a threat leads to surrender. Without a threat you can live happily ever after in your position.
With that in mind the genius inventors of chess created the wise rule, that, if you are not in a threat but have no legal move, the result is a draw.
hope this helps
Yeah. threat... here is the threat... and i have already said a couple of times, so people should really understand the things already said, but here goes: The threat is as a follows... either you think about your options, and let the time run out. or you make an "illegal" move, and get knocked out. Those are the options, so just resign, like a good sport would.
Crooked rules. Jump through hoops, which dont make much sense.
Kinda sounds like coomie rules... yeah, communists liked chess veryvery much... send them straight, as long as there is a carrot at the end of the road. But whatever - stop stupid, commies are stupid. Not very genius at all... our spy gave them nukes... which was a damn shame.
No, there is no thread 
Time is not part of the chess rules. Time limits are only recently introduced, i guess to make tournaments.
So it is just a Deadlock Situation and to me a Draw is a reasonable Solution.
Ysegrim wrote:
ellipsis_GG hat geschrieben:
Ysegrim wrote:
ellipsis_GG hat geschrieben:
Ysegrim wrote:
Sorry, no win. You missed the goal, even though you are very close.
Here is another analogy why:
Lets assume you are in the garden under an apple tree and you are hungry. There is an apple hanging on the tree but you can't reach it.
Would you argue that you are no longer hungry, because the apple can't escape?
'Sometimes' you have to accept reality
Nah... because its a war game, not picking apples... surround is perfectly viable strategy. I mean, For most cases, it is better than direct confrontation, as it leads to surrender.
Yeah, its a skill issue, not being real about it.
Hmmm, Analogy did not work, but i guess i found the problem.
You assume, that surround leads to surrender, but that is wrong. Only a threat leads to surrender. Without a threat you can live happily ever after in your position.
With that in mind the genius inventors of chess created the wise rule, that, if you are not in a threat but have no legal move, the result is a draw.
hope this helps
Yeah. threat... here is the threat... and i have already said a couple of times, so people should really understand the things already said, but here goes: The threat is as a follows... either you think about your options, and let the time run out. or you make an "illegal" move, and get knocked out. Those are the options, so just resign, like a good sport would.
Crooked rules. Jump through hoops, which dont make much sense.
Kinda sounds like coomie rules... yeah, communists liked chess veryvery much... send them straight, as long as there is a carrot at the end of the road. But whatever - stop stupid, commies are stupid. Not very genius at all... our spy gave them nukes... which was a damn shame.
No, there is no thread
Time is not part of the chess rules. Time limits are only recently introduced, i guess to make tournaments.
So it is just a Deadlock Situation and to me a Draw is a reasonable Solution.
There is time, first of all, and that is alright... secondly, no man... if u get surrounded by ops, you run out of food, and you die.
People ask me about my rating... my rating at this time is around 3500... in a game girls dont really play... 
Ahh, transcend. All that is not important, except the girl part... make sense of it... seems like people just happen to be stupidly biased.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4mivnv4kyRk?feature=share
iamritvik1 wrote:
🏳️1/2🏴
See... you might hit the mark, copying the homework, but, have you learned to use your brain? Naaah, so, you are a dummy! That is high rated... i play like that too, meaning the dialogue, but mine is way more serious. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XIAB_cbT8NU?feature=share
Feb 2, 2025
0
#68
You're not going to change a rule that has existed (almost?) since the game was born. Cope.
ellipsis_GG hat geschrieben:
Ysegrim wrote:
ellipsis_GG hat geschrieben:
Ysegrim wrote:
ellipsis_GG hat geschrieben:
Ysegrim wrote:
Sorry, no win. You missed the goal, even though you are very close.
Here is another analogy why:
Lets assume you are in the garden under an apple tree and you are hungry. There is an apple hanging on the tree but you can't reach it.
Would you argue that you are no longer hungry, because the apple can't escape?
'Sometimes' you have to accept reality
Nah... because its a war game, not picking apples... surround is perfectly viable strategy. I mean, For most cases, it is better than direct confrontation, as it leads to surrender.
Yeah, its a skill issue, not being real about it.
Hmmm, Analogy did not work, but i guess i found the problem.
You assume, that surround leads to surrender, but that is wrong. Only a threat leads to surrender. Without a threat you can live happily ever after in your position.
With that in mind the genius inventors of chess created the wise rule, that, if you are not in a threat but have no legal move, the result is a draw.
hope this helps
Yeah. threat... here is the threat... and i have already said a couple of times, so people should really understand the things already said, but here goes: The threat is as a follows... either you think about your options, and let the time run out. or you make an "illegal" move, and get knocked out. Those are the options, so just resign, like a good sport would.
Crooked rules. Jump through hoops, which dont make much sense.
Kinda sounds like coomie rules... yeah, communists liked chess veryvery much... send them straight, as long as there is a carrot at the end of the road. But whatever - stop stupid, commies are stupid. Not very genius at all... our spy gave them nukes... which was a damn shame.
No, there is no thread
Time is not part of the chess rules. Time limits are only recently introduced, i guess to make tournaments.
So it is just a Deadlock Situation and to me a Draw is a reasonable Solution.
There is time, first of all, and that is alright... secondly, no man... if u get surrounded by ops, you run out of food, and you die.
People ask me about my rating... my rating at this time is around 3500... in a game girls dont really play... Ahh, transcend. All that is not important, except the girl part... make sense of it... seems like people just happen to be stupidly biased.
Yeah, but if i have my lunchbox with me, the ops die and i win.
Ysegrim hat geschrieben:
ellipsis_GG hat geschrieben:
Ysegrim wrote:
ellipsis_GG hat geschrieben:
Ysegrim wrote:
ellipsis_GG hat geschrieben:
Ysegrim wrote:
Sorry, no win. You missed the goal, even though you are very close.
Here is another analogy why:
Lets assume you are in the garden under an apple tree and you are hungry. There is an apple hanging on the tree but you can't reach it.
Would you argue that you are no longer hungry, because the apple can't escape?
'Sometimes' you have to accept reality
Nah... because its a war game, not picking apples... surround is perfectly viable strategy. I mean, For most cases, it is better than direct confrontation, as it leads to surrender.
Yeah, its a skill issue, not being real about it.
Hmmm, Analogy did not work, but i guess i found the problem.
You assume, that surround leads to surrender, but that is wrong. Only a threat leads to surrender. Without a threat you can live happily ever after in your position.
With that in mind the genius inventors of chess created the wise rule, that, if you are not in a threat but have no legal move, the result is a draw.
hope this helps
Yeah. threat... here is the threat... and i have already said a couple of times, so people should really understand the things already said, but here goes: The threat is as a follows... either you think about your options, and let the time run out. or you make an "illegal" move, and get knocked out. Those are the options, so just resign, like a good sport would.
Crooked rules. Jump through hoops, which dont make much sense.
Kinda sounds like coomie rules... yeah, communists liked chess veryvery much... send them straight, as long as there is a carrot at the end of the road. But whatever - stop stupid, commies are stupid. Not very genius at all... our spy gave them nukes... which was a damn shame.
No, there is no thread
Time is not part of the chess rules. Time limits are only recently introduced, i guess to make tournaments.
So it is just a Deadlock Situation and to me a Draw is a reasonable Solution.
There is time, first of all, and that is alright... secondly, no man... if u get surrounded by ops, you run out of food, and you die.
People ask me about my rating... my rating at this time is around 3500... in a game girls dont really play... Ahh, transcend. All that is not important, except the girl part... make sense of it... seems like people just happen to be stupidly biased.
Yeah, but if i have my lunchbox with me, the ops die and i win.
btw: nobody asked about your rating.
Fr3nchToastCrunch wrote:
You're not going to change a rule that has existed (almost?) since the game was born. Cope.
Agreed.
As I've said before in this thread making stalemate a win against the person being stalemated will have a drastic impact on flagging. It would mean that when the opponent runs out of time then even a player with a lone king can get the win as long as the opponent's army includes at least one a or h pawn since the opponent can fall into a stalemate (by losing everything else, moving their king to the queening square, advancing the pawn to one square before queening, and then the player with the lone king moving two squares away in the row). There are also stalemate possibilities even if there is no a or h pawn (one example is White Bishop a7, Knight a8, Rook b7, Queen b8, Pawns b6 and c7, King c8 and Black King on e7 or e8 - note that a King plus the six b through g pawns with no other material can still have the pawns promote to the needed pieces, and could thus still be stalemated). Since FIDE says that a player running out of time will lose if there is any sequence of legal moves leading to the opponent winning, a lone king will be able to win on time quite often. That would, of course, give a player with a lone king even more of an incentive to continue playing in otherwise hopeless positions.
Fr3nchToastCrunch wrote:
You're not going to change a rule that has existed (almost?) since the game was born. Cope.
Well, then cope with having such bad game design... lower game, that is all.
For a new player, this is just bad design... from realism... also, just makes no sense... its bad design, and that is all that is. These are not draws. These are wins. I understand, once you are conditioned, you cope just fine, just like an animal in a circus, jumping through hoops, for a carrot, or whatever... but its just bad design, and that is just the reality. not chess. Bad design. Does this look like a draw? Anywhere close? King vs king, that is a draw. This, not a draw... so gotta think extra hard. BAD DESIGN. COPE. Bad games, badly designed... COPE with that... its a bad game... i should drop it now. But you guys enjoy. https://www.chess.com/game/122610691134?move=136
Not exactly chess @ fault, but the developers here. Bye now.
Feb 3, 2025
0
#74
Stalemate is a rule that has been debated for years
no result can satisfy everyone so they satisfy the majority
the majority wants draw
it’s a draw
Qinshu111_the_chess_panda wrote:
Stalemate is a rule that has been debated for years
no result can satisfy everyone so they satisfy the majority
the majority wants draw
it’s a draw
It was debated for years, but that was more than 200 years ago.
Qinshu111_the_chess_panda wrote:
Stalemate is a rule that has been debated for years
no result can satisfy everyone so they satisfy the majority
the majority wants draw
it’s a draw
Thanks for the input. I guess that all the sensible people left for greener planes. Graduation day. https://www.quora.com/What-did-Mark-Twain-mean-when-he-said-Whenever-you-find-yourself-on-the-side-of-the-majority-it-may-be-time-to-stop-and-reflect
magipi wrote:
Qinshu111_the_chess_panda wrote:
Stalemate is a rule that has been debated for years
no result can satisfy everyone so they satisfy the majority
the majority wants draw
it’s a draw
It was debated for years, but that was more than 200 years ago.
This guy here is a good example of that majority... he cannot give any reasonable arguments, yet hes on this thread more than me, so it seems. 200 years... make it a 1000 years... its like Einstein said? Why do you need a 100 to prove me wrong... if you were right, just one would be enough. And im right, and you are not... so, COPE. LOL
600 millions guys... nevermind a 100. Above it, just like that.
ellipsis_GG wrote:
And im right, and you are not... so, COPE. LOL
Yes, yes. A confused beginner throwing a tantrum is "right".
By the way, isn't this tantrum a bit too long? You already had several days to calm down.
magipi wrote:
ellipsis_GG wrote:
And im right, and you are not... so, COPE. LOL
Yes, yes. A confused beginner throwing a tantrum is "right".
By the way, isn't this tantrum a bit too long? You already had several days to calm down.
A confused begginer? You dont understand the fundamentals of drawing a game, in general. Open a dictionary. You are a noob... not in chess, in life.
So the question is quite funny... are these 600 millions of people reasonable, or just fools for rules. Game theory and development. Think about it.
It doesnt require any thought. Any way you look at it, you are wrong!
Okay, how am i wrong, cause i explain how i am right? I already did... can you explain how am i wrong? I know, rulesrulesrules and 600 million supposed to mean somethin... well, here is the memo - the rules dont make much sense.
The point is... its a win. Maybe not as clean, but its a win.
I'm not going to bother to read the additional pages.
You are wrong and you will remain wrong right up until you get FIDE to change the rules. Note that if the rules are changed then under FIDE a lone king can win on time against an opposing player that still has every piece because there will be theoretical help(stale)mates that can arise. Those rules regarding the results of flagging would be drastically affected by your proposed change.
After you get the FIDE rules changed you can re-open the thread. You will need to get it on the agenda to be addressed by the FIDE rules committee and then brought up for vote at the FIDE conference at the Olympiad. Maybe you can overcome the great odds against you.