Why was this a stalemate?? - Chess Forums - Page 3

Ransome01

Mar 20, 2021

0

#41

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Ransome01 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Ransome01 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Honestly not another guy whinning about stalemate. We have had enough of this.

So, your whinning about receiving verbal abuse message from staff is more justifiable than his? Ah man! The world is tilted.

Yes it is . You would know it better you troll .Secondly it's not a message from the staff. I thought you could figure out a simple thing like that . Thirdly it's not me , it's many people receiving the same message in the last few days . Lastly I appreciate that you went over my post .

Lol I'm a troll for pointing out the obvious? Yeah, had my bit of fun before your post was locked.

You aren't posting the obvious lmao . You couldn't even figure out that it was an automated message and not a message sent by the staff . If I whine about getting penalized for something I haven't done , it's justified , unlike this post . Also it would be safe to say that you got no social life , since you have fun out of such silly stuff.

Keep giving excuses to yourself. You're good at it.

Anonymous_Dragon

Mar 20, 2021

0

#42

Ransome01 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Ransome01 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Ransome01 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Honestly not another guy whinning about stalemate. We have had enough of this.

So, your whinning about receiving verbal abuse message from staff is more justifiable than his? Ah man! The world is tilted.

Yes it is . You would know it better you troll .Secondly it's not a message from the staff. I thought you could figure out a simple thing like that . Thirdly it's not me , it's many people receiving the same message in the last few days . Lastly I appreciate that you went over my post .

Lol I'm a troll for pointing out the obvious? Yeah, had my bit of fun before your post was locked.

You aren't posting the obvious lmao . You couldn't even figure out that it was an automated message and not a message sent by the staff . If I whine about getting penalized for something I haven't done , it's justified , unlike this post . Also it would be safe to say that you got no social life , since you have fun out of such silly stuff.

Keep giving excuses to yourself. You're good at it.

I don't need to lmao . You can keep dodging the point and assume stuff and keep ranting the same thing . You are good at it .

lfPatriotGames

Mar 20, 2021

0

#43

Strangemover wrote:

Baltoluthien wrote:

I see. He wasn't able to make any moves, so for the sake of a dumb rule, he isn't forced to lose, but it's a stalemate. They should just force him to lose if he can't move, sheesh, pointless rule.

The stalemate rule is something new players must overcome and understand. Whether it should exist has been debated endlessly, and there are many threads in these forums if you want to do that. Have a read and you will perhaps start to see that it is not pointless. In any case, it does exist and must be accepted. In this thread you have described it as 'lame' and a 'dumb rule'...the rules exist the same for everybody, it's up to you to understand and adapt to them. In short, to get better at chess. In this game you missed mate in 1 on no fewer than 11 occasions - this is what is lame and dumb, not the stalemate rule. If you had seen even 1 of these then the stalemate would never have happened and you would have got your win. Chess is a game of personal responsibility, better to own it and try to improve than cry in the forums about the rules.

That's a really good comment.

When I was learning chess stalemate, en passant, and castling were the things my dad harped on me the most. He didn't even worry about how the pieces move because he knew I would learn that very quickly.

Because there is basically no luck in chess, you are right, it is a game of personal responsibility. Everything that happens, happens because of something we did. It's been a long time since I learned how to play chess, but the stalemate rule is one that I appreciate much more now than I did when I was a beginner.

Shizuko

Mar 20, 2021

0

#44

Baltoluthien wrote:

Idk if this is the wrong forum section for this / am new. Tho I don't understand this, I'm white with 1 minute left, then...... automatic stalemate when I have 3 queens about to position to win, the heck? No repeat moves, like I said 55 seconds left, more than enough to position for a win...

Cuz its a stalemate lol... The enemy team has no where to move! when your up that much material, its always best to think a little before each move

AussieMatey

Mar 20, 2021

0

#45

You did have a few chances to mate. Unbelievably, you missed exactly 50 one move checkmates!!!

49.d5#

50.Qbc6# Qec6# Qbe7# Qee7# Qed5# Bb4#

51. Qbe7# Qee7# Qc6# Bb4#

52. Qbb4# Qeb4# Qd4# Qc6# Qc2# Bb4#

53. Qbb4# Qeb4# Qc2# Qd4# Qed5# Qbc6# Qec6# Bb4#

54. Qbc6# Qec6# Qbb4# Qeb4# Qd4# Bb4#

55. Qb4# Qc2# Qbd5# Qfd5# Qbb5# Qfb5#

56. Qb3# Qb1#

57. Qd5#

58. Qb4# Qd5#

59. Qbd5# Qdd5# Qgc8# Nd3# Ne6#

60. Qb4# Qc3# Qgc8#

CalinRobertToma

Mar 20, 2021

0

#46

In chess King can`t suicide, that is Stalemate translation...

Cynac

Mar 21, 2021

0

#47

As an attempt to genuinely help the poster.

it would appear that, like many people, you have picked up the word "stalemate" as being synonymous with the word "draw". It is used this way in general writing/speaking. In particular, it s used where two opposing forces are so evenly matched that they cancel each other out. E.g. A 0-0 draw at football (soccer) will often be termed a stalemate.

this is an "incorrect" loose usage that has become widespread, with regards the meaning in chess. In chess, it describes a particular situation. It is Black to move, but he cannot make a legal move. Therefore the game cannot continue. Therefore it has to be declared a draw. A position could be constructed where Black could be WINNING, but it is a draw because he cannot currently make a legal move. So no result other than a draw can be declared.

many reading this will think I am over-interpreting your misconception, but from the way you describe "an automatic stalemate", to me it is clear that you think this word simply means "draw". Even the title makes this very clear.

once you get used to the idea, it will be no problem for you, and you will come to wonder why you wereconcerned (but it will still be occasionally painful...two weeks ago in our online club champs, I had two rooks vs a single pawn and rook and made the mistake of taking the pawn.My opponent chased my king around the board with his rook. As soon as I took the rook with my king it would be stalemate. My young opponent is a master of this... )

it's an extra subletly.

One more of the joys/tragedies of chess.

pardesi

Mar 21, 2021

0

#48

Baltoluthien wrote:

I see. He wasn't able to make any moves, so for the sake of a dumb rule, he isn't forced to lose, but it's a stalemate. They should just force him to lose if he can't move, sheesh, pointless rule.

Every rule in chess is arbitrary. The problem isn't the rule, but that you weren't aware of it. Knowing the rules is part of the game.

pardesi

Mar 21, 2021

0

#49

Butterflaj wrote:

I understand it can get frustrating seeing people react that way to a sensible rule that definitely should exist in chess, and I imagine it's quite easy to get defensive about it as a player for many years. That being said, your relatively hostile reply is uncalled for and achieves nothing.

I didn't think strangemover's reply was unduly hostile. Not "suffering fools gladly" is a virtue, not a vice. The rules of chess are not many or hard, playing chess well is hard. The OP swindled himself out of a W because he didn't know the rules, and then blames the rule. Let's recap the chain of events:

1. OP blows a won position and ends up with a draw, because he doesn't know a basic rule.

2. OP seeks explanation for draw.

3. Strangemover gives explanation.

4. OP comes back with post that demonstrates he either didn't read the explanation he requested or didn't grasp it.

5. After second explanation, OP insults the rule.

6. OP continues to insist that he "really" won even though under the rules of the game he did not.

News to OP: You didn't "really" win, you "really" lost because you had an overwhelming advantage and couldn't bring it home. My advice is take the D, learn a lesson and move on.

Baltoluthien

Mar 22, 2021

0

#50

To be honest, I still find Stalemate stupid as heck. It may be a ongoing debate & should be to be honest. This game should be a diagram of battlefield map positioning. In a battlefield, surrounding your enemy MEANS YOU WIN, regardless of some b.s. rule somebody made probably when they had a solo king & wanted some fake way to win with 1 king, that's it folks. Do all chess formats play with this rule? Do other chess sites not run solo king stalemates? When on a battlefield does not allowing the last man standing to run away, means the opposing army forfits to a draw, makes no sense. I guess making sure the king has a space to move gives the game an extra step needed to beware about, on the other hand, for actual map logic, it just seems unintelligent in design. " but were stuck with this bogus rule " mkay whatever.

Strangemover

Mar 22, 2021

0

#51

So you know the rule now. You think it's a stupid rule, but you know the rule. Yet you still make this move leading to a draw from a dominant position, instead of literally any other move which would not cause a stalemate.

You spent 3 seconds to decide on this move despite having over 3 minutes left on your clock. Perhaps by thinking about it a bit longer you might have seen that this would be a stupid stalemate? You could have done this instead for example...

Once again, it is you who is responsible for drawing the game instead of winning it. Once again you are whining about a rule which is 200 years old and won't change for you or any other new player who hasn't yet worked out how to give checkmate with a massive material superiority and that thinking and taking a bit of care over what moves you are making is a good idea.

Khallyx

Mar 22, 2021

0

#52

Baltoluthien wrote:

Overall, if this was any other game, like a RTS, if I had 10 guys left verses 1, it's never a draw.

That's also not true at all, so I don't know why you brought that up

lfPatriotGames

Mar 23, 2021

0

#53

Strangemover wrote:

So you know the rule now. You think it's a stupid rule, but you know the rule. Yet you still make this move leading to a draw from a dominant position, instead of literally any other move which would not cause a stalemate.

You spent 3 seconds to decide on this move despite having over 3 minutes left on your clock. Perhaps by thinking about it a bit longer you might have seen that this would be a stupid stalemate? You could have done this instead for example...

Once again, it is you who is responsible for drawing the game instead of winning it. Once again you are whining about a rule which is 200 years old and won't change for you or any other new player who hasn't yet worked out how to give checkmate with a massive material superiority and that thinking and taking a bit of care over what moves you are making is a good idea.

It looks like there could be a couple other moves that could cause stalemate as well. Maybe it's possible he saw one (or even two) moves that cause stalemate, but didn't see the one he made.

Still, if there was actually 3 minutes left, yeah, no reason whatsoever to draw that game.

succuna

Mar 23, 2021

0

#54

it's because your opponent can't move his king anywhere but they're not in check

jetoba

Jun 27, 2022

0

#55

TheSwagNinja36 wrote:

I got a strange stalemate too, can someone explain this please

Nothing strange about it https://www.chess.com/game/computer/13919725

The a2 queen covers d2, e2 and f2. The d3 queen covers d1 and f1. The King on e1 cannot legally move to any of those squares and there is no other possible move for White so the game is over. Since the White King is not in check it is not a checkmate so that leaves stalemate and a draw.

As a reminder, in checkers stalemate is a loss while in chess it is a draw.

DaveAngus

Jun 27, 2022

0

#56

Because the king cant make a legal move and isnt currently in check.

Khallyx

Jun 27, 2022

0

#57

jetoba wrote:

TheSwagNinja36 wrote:

I got a strange stalemate too, can someone explain this please

Nothing strange about it https://www.chess.com/game/computer/13919725

The a2 queen covers d2, e2 and f2. The d3 queen covers d1 and f1. The King on e1 cannot legally move to any of those squares and there is no other possible move for White so the game is over. Since the White King is not in check it is not a checkmate so that leaves stalemate and a draw.

As a reminder, in checkers stalemate is a loss while in chess it is a draw.

Why are you replying to this, it's months old.

ChessProKing-TM

Jun 27, 2022

0

#58

That's tough

zone_chess

Jun 27, 2022

0

#59

Butterflaj wrote:

Strangemover wrote:

Baltoluthien wrote:

I see. He wasn't able to make any moves, so for the sake of a dumb rule, he isn't forced to lose, but it's a stalemate. They should just force him to lose if he can't move, sheesh, pointless rule.

The stalemate rule is something new players must overcome and understand. Whether it should exist has been debated endlessly, and there are many threads in these forums if you want to do that. Have a read and you will perhaps start to see that it is not pointless. In any case, it does exist and must be accepted. In this thread you have described it as 'lame' and a 'dumb rule'...the rules exist the same for everybody, it's up to you to understand and adapt to them. In short, to get better at chess. In this game you missed mate in 1 on no fewer than 11 occasions - this is what is lame and dumb, not the stalemate rule. If you had seen even 1 of these then the stalemate would never have happened and you would have got your win. Chess is a game of personal responsibility, better to own it and try to improve than cry in the forums about the rules.

Might wanna chill a bit and give the new guy a break...

No, he is right and we should listen to people like Strangemover.
No more little crybabies. There's rules and that's that what's so difficult learning to cope with losses? It's just another loss...
And by the way, chess is not chill, chess is war.

zone_chess

Jun 27, 2022

0

#60

Baltoluthien wrote:

To be honest, I still find Stalemate stupid as heck. It may be a ongoing debate & should be to be honest. This game should be a diagram of battlefield map positioning. In a battlefield, surrounding your enemy MEANS YOU WIN, regardless of some b.s. rule somebody made probably when they had a solo king & wanted some fake way to win with 1 king, that's it folks. Do all chess formats play with this rule? Do other chess sites not run solo king stalemates? When on a battlefield does not allowing the last man standing to run away, means the opposing army forfits to a draw, makes no sense. I guess making sure the king has a space to move gives the game an extra step needed to beware about, on the other hand, for actual map logic, it just seems unintelligent in design. " but were stuck with this bogus rule " mkay whatever.

Your medieval reasoning would lead us back to medieval chess, when indeed stalemate was win.

The new rules force players to stay sharper. Chess is first and foremost a mindsport.
So sharpen up! Do more puzzles.

The first response of this thread should have been enough information for you to conclude:

A stalemate is a draw which occurs when one side has no legal moves but is not in check, as was the case here.

We're not going back to medieval rules and that's that. (grow up)