A suggestion of a way around stalemate. An alternative. - Chess Forums

JayeshSinhaChess

Mar 6, 2018

0

#1

Personally I am fine with stalemate but its been clear from reading the forums that a lot of people aren't. So I was thinking of a way around stalemate and I thought what if the King that would be in stalemate could capture the piece that was putting it in stalemate if it moved and the game would continue.

So for example -

In this position after Rxb1, the position is a stalemate. However in the scenario that I am suggesting the game would not end, but rather the black king would be able to capture one of the two rooks that keep it from moving.

So the game would continue till checkmate. Say the king would move to a3 and the rook that was preventing the King moving to a3, the one on g3, would be taken off the board, to indicate a capture and game would continue.

Alternatively instead of the person in stalemate deciding which enemy piece he would like to have off the board, let the person who has put the opponent in stalemate decide which of his pieces he would want to allow off the board.

In either scenario the game would continue beyond the stalemate.

In king vs King and pawn stalemates, it would actually still be a draw.

For after this stalemate since the King can't capture the opponent king it would be assumed that the black king captured the pawn, and hence king vs king was a draw.

If you want to be even more radical, then in this position allow the black king to capture the white king and since the king was captured it would mean a win for black. So the endeavor of players would be avoid getting into a stalemate of this sort where one of the stalemating pieces is their king for it would lead to an instant defeat.

Thoughts?

FatBertha

Mar 6, 2018

0

#2

You can always create a chess variant with any rules you like.

In the first position Rxb1 is a serious blunder in a winning position. Ra3+! allows capturing the queen without stalemating the opponent. Why should a player be rewarded for blunders? Do you see how this would make chess a much less exiting game?

JayeshSinhaChess

Mar 7, 2018

0

#3

I know one can have multiple variations of chess but do you like this one.

Also Rxb1 is not a blunder in the new stalemate rules.

JayeshSinhaChess

Mar 7, 2018

0

#4

I think people are fixating on the wrong aspect, which is the 1st example. Its just something that I drummed up in 1 min that position, and there are genuinely better examples out there of 'proper' stalemates.

What do you think of the person in stalemate just picking off one of the stalemating pieces and game continuing.

ponz111

Mar 7, 2018

0

#5

JayeshSinhaChess wrote:

I think people are fixating on the wrong aspect, which is the 1st example. Its just something that I drummed up in 1 min that position, and there are genuinely better examples out there of 'proper' stalemates.

What do you think of the person in stalemate just picking off one of the stalemating pieces and game continuing.

This would not make any sense at all. There is nothing wrong with the stalemate rule--it is part of chess.

If you got rid of the stalemate rule this would somewhat invalidate millions of strong and beautiful games already played.

ponz111

Mar 7, 2018

0

#6

scicillianmate wrote:

The whole point of chess is mating the king thus trapping the same, I believe it would make sense that if you make the opponents king unable to move ie stalemate esp in quick games such as blitz etc you could or even should get some reward perhaps a lower points gain than a checkmate.

But there are arguments for both sides and realistically it’s not going to change.

There is more to chess than in what you stated.

andrewnox

Mar 7, 2018

0

#7

I don't know, in some cases this would lead to a disadvantage to the winning player. I can't say I am personally keen on such an idea, but hey, if you like such a variant, go for it.

Strangemover

Mar 7, 2018

0

#8

I think stalemate should remain. But a better alternative for me would be that instead of checkmate the way to win should be to capture the opponents king. So the stalemated king must move and is then captured next move. King can move next to opponents king and be captured. You can place the king in check and if captured game over, if missed the game continues etc.

Iguana-on-a-stick

Apr 2, 2018

0

#9

If you are interested in some hilarious stalemates then read my blog post:

https://www.chess.com/blog/Iguana-on-a-stick/blog

JayeshSinhaChess

Apr 3, 2018

0

#10

Excellent blog, some very good games up there.