This rule rocks!
Another new stupid rule in chess
Sort:
I know!
FBloggs wrote:
Only a moron would argue that not moving after the game has ended in accordance with the rules of chess violates the rules of chess.
No, the game ends because the player to move isn't moving. When Y happens because of X, then X happened first, obviously.
Also, "only a moron" begs the question in an argument. Given that the stalemate rule itself is the question (i.e., the point of contention), you can't use the fact that the rule currently exists to justify its existence. When arguing this, there is no stalemate rule, i.e., it is a hypothetical scenario of a game of chess, sans any rule regarding stalemate, which reaches a position in which the player to move is not in check and has no legal moves available to him. Since there's no rule regarding what the result should be in this position, the question is, what is the logical result? The answer is obvious: it is a loss by forfeit because he only has two options, move or don't move, neither of which are legal.
I get what your saying, but your comparing apples and oranges. The goal of chess is to checkmate the opponent's king. The problem is that stalemate shouldn't be a WIN for the stalemating player. He failed to check the king such that there is no way to stop the check with any legal moves. He didn't do that, so he gets a draw. One player cannot get a draw while the other player loses. That player can't win either because he didn't check the king. Therefore, the only logical solution is a draw. The stalemater should lose half a point because he didn't checkmate, and the stalemated guy should gain half a point because he wasn't CHECKMATED. What doesn't make sense about that? It's the combination of the rules that have to make sense, not just each rule individually.
Hahahaha you people are so funny
EndgameStudy wrote:
I get what your saying, but your comparing apples and oranges. The goal of chess is to checkmate the opponent's king.
The goal of the game can't happen if one of the players doesn't make a move. It could be because he ran out of his agreed-upon allotted time, or it could be that he didn't show up for the agreed-upon game at all, or it could be that he has no legal move to make. Regardless of the reason for him not moving, the fact remains that he is not moving. There is no legal option to "not move" in chess, thus he loses by forfeit. The goal of a game is never accomplished in cases of loss by forfeit, and that applies to all games/sports.
>The problem is that stalemate shouldn't be a WIN for the stalemating player. He failed to check the king such that there is no way to stop the check with any legal moves. He didn't do that, so he gets a draw. One player cannot get a draw while the other player loses. That player can't win either because he didn't check the king.
The same thing could be said about any loss by forfeit in any game or sport (just substitute whatever terminology is relevant to the game/sport you're talking about). So, you just don't like the universal concept of loss by forfeit, which translates to a win for the opponent?
>Therefore, the only logical solution is a draw. The stalemater should lose half a point because he didn't checkmate, and the stalemated guy should gain half a point because he wasn't CHECKMATED. What doesn't make sense about that? It's the combination of the rules that have to make sense, not just each rule individually.
The stalemater shouldn't lose anything, because he did nothing but make legal moves each and every time it was his turn. Logically speaking, he's only responsible for his own moves. There is zero logic in holding him responsible for the other player's moves (or lack thereof). He can't possibly checkmate because the other guy is preventing the game from continuing. It's the other guy's turn and he isn't moving, which isn't a legal option in chess, thus it is logically a loss by forfeit.
Well in this case he gets away with not moving, due to the other player failing to checkmate him. U have the universal concept of a forfeit WRONG.
There's a difference between stalemate and checkmate. Therefore they shouldn't have the same result
EndgameStudy wrote:
Well in this case he gets away with not moving, due to the other player failing to checkmate him.
"The other player failing to checkmate him" is irrelevant, because the game ended prematurely due to him not moving when it was his turn.
>U have the universal concept of a forfeit WRONG.
No. Not moving isn't a legal option, therefore it is logically a loss by forfeit.
>There's a difference between stalemate and checkmate. Therefore they shouldn't have the same result
This is no different than saying, "There's a difference between not showing up for the game at all and checkmate. Therefore they shouldn't have the same result." However, they do have the same result, i.e., a win for the player who showed up for the game and a win for the player who checkmated his opponent. However, the wins would be recorded differently. A loss by forfeit is recorded as such, and a loss by checkmate is recorded as such (#).
Oct 28, 2017
0
#191
Of course it is interesting to discuss which rules are useful and which are not. Fact is however that the rule on stalemate exist, it developed historically and it will not change. But it is always possible to agree with a colleague to play with different rules, for example with stalemate as regarded as a kind of checkmate.
By the way, I agree with those people who say that stalemate is okay. I know that a lot of casual players don't know the rule and would like to see stalemate as winning for the stronger side. I tend to see people who are against the stalemate-rule as somehow weak players or as players who did not recover from the shock they had when they found out the first time that stalemate is not winning. I don't want to offend anybody, but probably most stronger players would say the same.
torrubirubi wrote:
By the way, I agree with those people who say that stalemate is okay. I know that a lot of casual players don't know the rule and would like to see stalemate as winning for the stronger side. I tend to see people who are against the stalemate-rule as somehow weak players or as players who did not recover from the shock they had when they found out the first time that stalemate is not winning. I don't want to offend anybody, but probably most stronger players would say the same.
Playing ability has nothing to do with the argument. Also, whether someone likes the stalemate rule or not has nothing to do with the argument. The argument is a question of logic, i.e., whether or not the rule makes sense.
In any case, since you brought it up (even though it's irrelevant), in addition to GM Larry Kaufman and British Master Theodore Tyler calling the stalemate rule "illogical" and "irrational", respectively, there was a fellow by the name of José Raúl Capablanca who said that the stalemate rule is illogical. I suppose that those guys are/were "weak players" who "did not recover from the shock they had when they found out the first time that stalemate is not winning"? Capablanca is widely considered to be one of the greatest chess players of all time, but compared to you he was clearly a patzer.
Let's hear from another "weak player" on the matter:
"As to the future of chess, I can say but little. I regard the game as having been developed now to its highest possibility in regard to the moves, of course, for at the present time all Europe plays the same game. The rule so long common in Italy of being permitted to castle despite the fact of there being pieces between the king and rook is now obsolete. But the next change to come in the rules will, and should, I think, apply to the stalemate.
Stalemate occurs, as you know, if the player who has to move is not in check, but cannot move his king without going into check, and has no other man that can legally be moved. At present a stalemate is regarded as a drawn game. Undoubtedly it will soon be considered a victory for the player who places his opponent in such a position.
For, owing to the immense accuracy soon to be attained by chess players, this innovation would result in there being fewer drawn games than at present, and surely a player who can force the game so as to obtain even a slight advantage should be rewarded for his strategy, instead of being content with an equal share in the honor. In that case a king and a rook's pawn against a king will win."
- Emanuel Lasker, World Chess Champion from 1894 to 1921
torrubirubi wrote:
Of course it is interesting to discuss which rules are useful and which are not. Fact is however that the rule on stalemate exist, it developed historically and it will not change. But it is always possible to agree with a colleague to play with different rules, for example with stalemate as regarded as a kind of checkmate.
By the way, I agree with those people who say that stalemate is okay. I know that a lot of casual players don't know the rule and would like to see stalemate as winning for the stronger side. I tend to see people who are against the stalemate-rule as somehow weak players or as players who did not recover from the shock they had when they found out the first time that stalemate is not winning. I don't want to offend anybody, but probably most stronger players would say the same.
That's probably true. We have probably all seen the reaction by a beginner when they realize a stalemate is not a win. Agreeing to play by local rules that say a stalemate is a win is a perfectly acceptable alternative but I probably wouldn't do it because I would not want to encourage anyone to play that way. Most stronger players likely do agree that a stalemate should be a tie because it doesn't accomplish the objective of the game. No doubt there are a handful of high rated players (past or present) that think a stalemate should be a win for the stalemating side because any move the king makes would put it in check. But it's likely most or possibly all of those players didnt think to realize not all stalemates occur that way. And because the rule developed historically to get to where it is, and because of modern computers and a much deeper understanding of the game, I agree it seem pretty unlikely there could be any chance of the rule changing to allow either side a win.
Oct 29, 2017
0
#194
MaximRecoil wrote:
torrubirubi wrote:
By the way, I agree with those people who say that stalemate is okay. I know that a lot of casual players don't know the rule and would like to see stalemate as winning for the stronger side. I tend to see people who are against the stalemate-rule as somehow weak players or as players who did not recover from the shock they had when they found out the first time that stalemate is not winning. I don't want to offend anybody, but probably most stronger players would say the same.
Playing ability has nothing to do with the argument. Also, whether someone likes the stalemate rule or not has nothing to do with the argument. The argument is a question of logic, i.e., whether or not the rule makes sense.
In any case, since you brought it up (even though it's irrelevant), in addition to GM Larry Kaufman and British Master Theodore Tyler calling the stalemate rule "illogical" and "irrational", respectively, there was a fellow by the name of José Raúl Capablanca who said that the stalemate rule is illogical. I suppose that those guys are/were "weak players" who "did not recover from the shock they had when they found out the first time that stalemate is not winning"? Capablanca is widely considered to be one of the greatest chess players of all time, but compared to you he was clearly a patzer.
Let's hear from another "weak player" on the matter:
"As to the future of chess, I can say but little. I regard the game as having been developed now to its highest possibility in regard to the moves, of course, for at the present time all Europe plays the same game. The rule so long common in Italy of being permitted to castle despite the fact of there being pieces between the king and rook is now obsolete. But the next change to come in the rules will, and should, I think, apply to the stalemate.
Stalemate occurs, as you know, if the player who has to move is not in check, but cannot move his king without going into check, and has no other man that can legally be moved. At present a stalemate is regarded as a drawn game. Undoubtedly it will soon be considered a victory for the player who places his opponent in such a position.
For, owing to the immense accuracy soon to be attained by chess players, this innovation would result in there being fewer drawn games than at present, and surely a player who can force the game so as to obtain even a slight advantage should be rewarded for his strategy, instead of being content with an equal share in the honor. In that case a king and a rook's pawn against a king will win."
- Emanuel Lasker, World Chess Champion from 1894 to 1921
Max, as I can see you know something about the topic. However, you should not forget that some great players in the past were horrified to give a half point to a player who they believed were MUUUCH weaker. Capa was concerned about draws and proposed therefore a version of chess with 100 squares, and for the same reason a guy proposed the 960 chess , also a rather strong player (Bobby). Nevertheless, most people just go on playing the game as it was once conceived. By the way, I didn't say that only weak players are not happy about stalemate, most beginners are unhappy though.
Let me ask u something MAXRECOIL, why IS Stalemate a draw then? If what you're saying is so obvious, logical, and correct, then why isn't stalemate a win? Actually think about this. U just keep possessing over that he can't move, but what does that prove? What sense does En Passant make? How can u take a piece on a different square then the piece is on? But the rule makes sense in other ways, ways that trump the slight illogic in the rule. Stalemate is illogical in terms of forfeit, but it is logical in terms of the game objective, which is more important than the technical definition of a forfeit.
In fact, not being able to pass one's turn is ANOTHER rule in itself, so you can't base your premise that stalemate is a win on another rule. What if that rule was changed so that if one couldn't move, he had to GIVE UP HIS TURN, so the stalemating player FROZE his opponent, and got extra moves until his opponent was able to move. That would be fair also. If u trapped your opponent, why shouldn't you get free extra moves as a result? This would result in most stalemating positions being winnable, but not ALL. In fact, the player could strategically give his opponent the legal moves he wants and WHEN he wants to win the game, but it wouldn't solve the lone king vs king and pawn problem
EndgameStudy wrote:
Let me ask u something MAXRECOIL, why IS Stalemate a draw then?
Because there's an illogical rule that says so.
>If what you're saying is so obvious, logical, and correct, then why isn't stalemate a win?
Because there's an illogical rule that says it is a draw.
>Actually think about this. U just keep possessing over that he can't move, but what does that prove?
It proves that, in a for-the-sake-of-argument case of chess which has no rule regarding stalemate at all, that not moving when it's your turn violates the rules, and is thus, logically a loss by forfeit.
>What sense does En Passant make? How can u take a piece on a different square then the piece is on?
En passant came about as an attempt to ensure that the then-new rule which allowed the pawn to move two squares on its first move didn't drastically alter the fundamental nature of the game. Prior to the new pawn move, it was impossible for a pawn to ever pass an opponent's pawn on an adjacent file without risking capture. En passant preserved that aspect of the game, somewhat anyway. Logically, en passant should be playable indefinitely (until one of the two relevant pawns moves again, that is), rather than just on the very next move, so that's the only part of the rule which is illogical. Of course, that would likely create a lot of disputes, i.e., when someone captures en passant 20 moves after it first became possible, and the other player disputing that it was ever an en passant situation to begin with.
>But the rule makes sense in other ways, ways that trump the slight illogic in the rule. Stalemate is illogical in terms of forfeit, but it is logical in terms of the game objective, which is more important than the technical definition of a forfeit.
In a stalemate situation, the game's checkmate objective has been precluded by a player who doesn't move, thus ending the game prematurely. Since it is the one not moving who is in violation of the rules, he logically loses by forfeit.
Alternatively, you could just eliminate the concept of "check" (and thus, "checkmate" as well) altogether, and the king could be captured like any other piece, which would immediately end the game, with the player who captured the king being the winner. This would make stalemate an irrelevant concept altogether, aside from a "smothered stalemate", which I'm not convinced has ever actually happened in a real game. A smothered stalemate, if it ever did happen, would just be a loss by forfeit for the stalemated player.
>In fact, not being able to pass one's turn is ANOTHER rule in itself
That rule (which is the most common rule among turn-based games) is not in question here. The rule in question is the stalemate rule, so to argue the logic of the stalemate rule, the argument is based on chess, as it is, sans the current stalemate rule.
>What if that rule was changed so that if one couldn't move, he had to GIVE UP HIS TURN, so the stalemating player FROZE his opponent, and got extra moves until his opponent was able to move. That would be fair also. If u trapped your opponent, why shouldn't you get free extra moves as a result? This would result in most stalemating positions being winnable, but not ALL. In fact, the player could strategically give his opponent the legal moves he wants and WHEN he wants to win the game, but it wouldn't solve the lone king vs king and pawn problem
Maybe someone will take you up on that argument, but that's a different argument than the one I'm in.
Evidently this character has devoted his life to arguing in favor of changing a chess rule that will almost certainly never be changed. It doesn't accomplish anything of course but hey, it gives him something to do.
The idea in chess is to capture space. To win, you need to control the space of your opponents King. I can't find anything wrong with the rule.
There is other rules that is absolutely absurd. It has to do with value and control. A king cannot move into or through a space that is under the opponents control. The problem arise when you reduce the value of the opponents piece in such a way that it is pinned. Why then can a king not move through such a space. Is the game not about control of space?
Especially Pashak1989 makes LONG ones.