@Max, I understand now, You're saying insufficient mating material would be a draw regardless of force stalemate possibilities later on, and I'm assuming the same thing if the last move resulting in insufficient material was also stalemate that move, like if the position in my previous position if BB7 captured a Rook lets say, it would be insufficient material and stalemate SIMULTANEOUSLY. The rule would have to be that if stalemate was a win, there has to be sufficient mating material left for the stalemating player. I still disagree that stalemate should be a win anyway because in my opinion its not really a forfeit.
Another new stupid rule in chess
Sort:
torrubirubi wrote:
Excellent point, very convincing! I think this is exactly the contradiction in any try of refutation of the stalemate rule base on logical thinking.
No, it's a case of begging the question, which I've already explained.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
And that's how about 99% of people would also look at it. It's so obvious that it makes you scratch your head at why some people dont get it. It reminds me of when my kids were young and I had to essentially repeat myself over and over. Logic and reasoning doesn't work on 4 year olds because they are motivated by something other than logical thinking. But, if you give them candy or something else that motivates them it's amazing how quickly they can see the logic in what you are saying.
It's ironic that you talk about logic as though you have a handle on it, when you are endorsing a "begging the question" logical fallacy, and when you yourself have also made "arguments" in this thread which begged the question.
EndgameStudy wrote:
@Max, I understand now, You're saying insufficient mating material would be a draw regardless of force stalemate possibilities later on, and I'm assuming the same thing if the last move resulting in insufficient material was also stalemate that move, like if the position in my previous position if BB7 captured a Rook lets say, it would be insufficient material and stalemate SIMULTANEOUSLY.
If "the last move resulting in insufficient material was also stalemate that move", then it would logically be a draw.
>The rule would have to be that if stalemate was a win, there has to be sufficient mating material left for the stalemating player. I still disagree that stalemate should be a win anyway because in my opinion its not really a forfeit.
Well, like I said previously, logically, there doesn't even need to be a rule about stalemate, because the existing rules (minus the current stalemate rule) are already sufficient to determine the results of any game. Insufficient mating material is a draw, even if the move which resulted in it is simultaneously a stalemate position. Both players are instantly relieved of any obligation to make any further moves in an insufficient mating material situation, so if it also happens to be a stalemate position at the same time, it's irrelevant. In all other instances of a stalemate position, the rule which requires players to take alternating turns with no option to pass, and the rule which disallows moving into check, are sufficient to logically determine that the stalemated player has lost by forfeit, because no matter what he does (make a move or don't make a move), it is illegal.
[COMMENT DELETED]
The only problem is that there would be 2 different types of stalemates. Some winnable, some drawn.
For example these positions:
In this game, white has won by stalemate. Correct?
But in this game, it would be already be a draw by insufficient material before white even starts forcing the stalemate.
Your logic works, but it raises questions, such as in positions where mate is possible, is stalemate just as good? According to you, YES, it's just as good as checkmate, but then players will think "wait a second" if I can win by forcing stalemate, then in that king+knight position, I should be allowed to force stalemate, because if I can force stalemate in one endgame, why can't I in another. I know we agreed on the solution that as long as there's sufficient mating material from either side, stalemate would be a win for the stalemating player. Your logic works, but BARELY.
There is one final tiny flaw: KING AND 2 KNIGHTS VS KING endgame:
King and 2 knights is sufficient to MATE, but not sufficient to FORCE MATE. HOWEVER, it is sufficient to STALEMATE AND FORCE STALEMATE. Should king and knight endgames be allowed to continue because one player can theoretically mate, but not force mate, but force stalemate? This is the only minor flaw I just realized. This endgame is where one can Mate, CAN'T force mate, but CAN force stalemate. This overlapping creates a problematic contradiction.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Your first example is a typical stalemate position; black logically loses by forfeit. Your second example is already a draw due to insufficient mating material, so the moves you listed wouldn't even take place to begin with. Your third example doesn't demonstrate a flaw at all. A king and two knights vs. a lone king is not an insufficient mating material situation (even though a checkmate can't be forced, it is still a possible position), so the game would have to play out if the players didn't agree to a draw. It would ultimately end with a checkmate, a draw due to the 50-move rule, a typical stalemate (loss by forfeit for black), or if white manages to capture one of the knights, a draw due to insufficient mating material.
MaximRecoil wrote:
Your first example is a typical stalemate position; black logically loses by forfeit. Your second example is already a draw due to insufficient mating material, so the moves you listed wouldn't even take place to begin with. Your third example doesn't demonstrate a flaw at all. A king and two knights vs. a lone king is not an insufficient mating material situation (even though a checkmate can't be forced, it is still a possible position), so the game would have to play out if the players didn't agree to a draw. It would ultimately end with a checkmate, a draw due to the 50-move rule, a typical stalemate (loss by forfeit for black), or if white manages to capture one of the knights, a draw due to insufficient mating material.
But then the strategy would only be to force stalemate, not checkmate. Checkmate cannot be forced, so any players in this endgame would go for forcing stalemate, which means it's no longer a "forfeit", but now a forceable winning combination. If stalemate is really a "forfeit", then how can players FORCE IT...AND WIN? Let me ask u this: what is the CURRENT rule with 2 knight vs king endgame? How do you resolve this contradiction. 2 knights vs king would be an AUTOMATIC win for the 2 knights because the player with 2 knights would FORCE STALEMATE, and win. Being able to FORCE a FORFEIT, based on the POSITION AND MOVES, is a contradiction to this logic. Don't tell me I repeated myself or any nonsense like that cause I'm just CLARIFYING my position, and your technical logic DOES NOT resolve this conflict, so stalemate shouldn't be a draw. A game where u can't force checkmate shouldn't be winnable by forcing stalemate, because then it is no longer a forfeit, but EQUIVALENT to checkmate, which is obsurd.
In this position:
Both sides have theoretical mates, but can't be forced. Should this game really continue to see if stalemate happens. Stalemate couldn't be forced in this position anyway, but u get the point.
Whether or not something can be forced is irrelevant. The rules of chess make no distinctions between forced and unforced anything. Forced vs. unforced is a problem for people to figure out in their own games or chess puzzles. A checkmate is a checkmate whether it was forced or not; a stalemate is a stalemate whether it was forced or not; a draw is a draw whether it was forced or not. And as for different scenarios having the same results, chess is already full of that sort of thing. A win due to opponent's time-forfeit gets the same "1" on the scorecard as a forced checkmate does, which gets the same "1" as a blindly-stumbled-into-checkmate does, which gets the same "1" as a win due to an opponent's resignation does (even if he resigned a "won" position). A draw due to mutual agreement gets the same "½" on the scorecard as a forced draw or an unforced draw does, and so on. A two-knights endgame isn't an automatic draw because checkmate is possible, even though it can't be forced.
Also, under the current rules (including the current stalemate=draw rule), people are already able to force a stalemate or draw to their benefit, giving them a half-win rather than the loss they would have had otherwise. A half win for a stalemated player is hilarious. His opponent controls every single square that he could possibly move any of his pieces to, and he gets rewarded with a half win for being completely neutralized? In any case, it boils down to the fact that it's his turn to move, and no matter what he does (move or don't move), it isn't legal, thus it's logically a loss by forfeit.
>Both sides have theoretical mates, but can't be forced. Should this game really continue to see if stalemate happens.
That game continues until it ends due to a checkmate, or the 50-move limit, or an agreed-upon draw, or a stalemate, or a time forfeit, or a resignation, or a capture (which would make it an insufficient mating material situation), or a threefold-repetition. It doesn't automatically end in the position shown because it isn't an insufficient mating material situation.
Endgames where checkmate is impossible to FORCE, shouldn't be easily winnable by stalemate. In the 2 knights endgame, players would agree to a draw in a second, but now, stalemate is a win, and is easily forceable in 2 knights endgame. Stalemate is no longer a forfeit, but a winning strategy, which shouldn't be.
The fact of the matter is stalemate is a position, and if its a position, it can be FORCED, but chess games shouldn't be winnable by stalemate if checkmate isn't even FORCABLE.
Also, if stalemate happened the exact same time as insufficient material, one could say the stalemate happened 1st, so it should be a win. If stalemate was on that move, why should insufficient mating material even matter. He can't make a legal move, so why is material even necessary according to your logic. If he forfeits at the exact same time as insufficient material, then u can't say one happened before the other, such as in.suff.Mat. before stalemate, because stalemate happened simultaneously. It kind of makes the insufficient material part void if stalemate is a win
EndgameStudy wrote:
Endgames where checkmate is impossible to FORCE, shouldn't be easily winnable by stalemate. In the 2 knights endgame, players would agree to a draw in a second, but now, stalemate is a win, and is easily forceable in 2 knights endgame. Stalemate is no longer a forfeit, but a winning strategy, which shouldn't be.
Again, whether something can be "forced" or not is irrelevant, and forcing stalemate is already a winning strategy, specifically, a half-win for someone who doesn't even remotely deserve it, due to having been completely neutralized/disarmed by his opponent.
Also, not that it's relevant, but can you show me how easy it is to force a stalemate with 2 knights vs. a lone king?
>The fact of the matter is stalemate is a position, and if its a position, it can be FORCED, but chess games shouldn't be winnable by stalemate if checkmate isn't even FORCABLE.
Typing "FORCED" in all caps isn't going to magically make it relevant. Also, what does the first part of your sentence even mean? "If it's a position, it can be forced"? No, not all possible positions can be forced, obviously.
>Also, if stalemate happened the exact same time as insufficient material, one could say the stalemate happened 1st, so it should be a win.
Yeah, one could say anything about anything, but it doesn't matter what someone says if they are wrong-by-definition. In the case of two events happening at the "exact same time", i.e., simultaneously, neither event happened first, by definition.
>If stalemate was on that move, why should insufficient mating material even matter.
You have that question backwards. In an IMM situation, both players are instantly relieved of any obligation to make any further moves. Also, you've been getting into begging-the-question territory again with these last few posts. In this hypothetical game of chess, stalemate isn't anything yet, i.e., it remains an open question, which is: What is the logical result of a stalemate position? That question doesn't even arise in an IMM situation, because that's automatically a draw.
I'll bet if I returned in five years, you two would still be arguing about stalemate, each making the same argument over and over to no avail. At some point rational people would simply agree to disagree and get on with their lives.
[COMMENT DELETED]
doggone2 wrote:
FBloggs wrote:
I'll bet if I returned in five years, you two would still be arguing about stalemate, each making the same argument over and over to no avail. At some point rational people would simply agree to disagree and get on with their lives.
Dontcha know? Logically it's a forfeit. If you don't eat yer meat you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if yer don't eat your meat?
You've given them something else to argue about:
EndgameStudy: "It only makes sense that you would have to eat your meat before getting your pudding because dessert comes after the main course"
MaximeRecoil: "That's a non sequitur. Dessert doesn't always follow the main course and pudding isn't exclusively a dessert. Larry Kaufman, among the greatest chess grandmasters and chefs in history, always serves dessert first and his main courses usually include pudding in lieu of mashed potatoes."
FBloggs wrote:
I'll bet if I returned in five years, you two would still be arguing about stalemate, each making the same argument over and over to no avail. At some point rational people would simply agree to disagree and get on with their lives.
If their goal is to convince the other then I think they are probably in stalemate. So, according to one of them, whomever has the last word wins, because the other forfeits by not responding. The reason for not responding is probably irrelevant, even if forced or if neither have sufficient convincing material.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
FBloggs wrote:
I'll bet if I returned in five years, you two would still be arguing about stalemate, each making the same argument over and over to no avail. At some point rational people would simply agree to disagree and get on with their lives.
If their goal is to convince the other then I think they are probably in stalemate. So, according to one of them, whomever has the last word wins, because the other forfeits by not responding. The reason for not responding is probably irrelevant, even if forced or if neither have sufficient convincing material.
You make a good point. They are at a stalemate in their argument over stalemate. Guess that's fitting. Unfortunately for them, unlike in chess, this stalemate doesn't end the discussion. Perhaps only death will end it. And the winner will gloat. "Not only did I finally win the argument but I'm still alive too!"
The problem though, is that people would claim that insufficient mating material IS NOT A DRAW if stalemate was a win. They would say: I could force stalemate, so It's not a draw. That's the contradiction.
In this position:
Normally, after the queens were exchanged, the position would be IMMDETIATELY A DRAW by insufficient mating material. However, since white has a sequence of moves that FORCES stalemate, white could win by stalemate. One could declare that it's a draw after the queens were exchanged, but another could claim that white can FORCE stalemate, resulting in black forfeiting and black losing. Players would try to FORCE their opponent to forfeit by stalemate in insufficient positions, but since checkmate is impossible, it's already a draw, so the game couldn't continue to that point anyway; but then it could because stalemate is a win. There's no way to resolve this conflict, so stalemate had to be a draw.
Excellent point, very convincing! I think this is exactly the contradiction in any try of refutation of the stalemate rule base on logical thinking.
And that's how about 99% of people would also look at it. It's so obvious that it makes you scratch your head at why some people dont get it. It reminds me of when my kids were young and I had to essentially repeat myself over and over. Logic and reasoning doesn't work on 4 year olds because they are motivated by something other than logical thinking. But, if you give them candy or something else that motivates them it's amazing how quickly they can see the logic in what you are saying.