Another new stupid rule in chess

If not that at least a draw by repetition. I'm sure the 50 move rule has also kicked in by now.

But if the discussion ended in stalemate, it will go on, as they will again discuss about the stalemate rule in discussions. 

Max, I showed an easy forced stalemate on the last page with 2 Knights in 35 moves. My point is that endgames that are normally unwinnable by checkmate shouldn't be winnable by stalemate. I'm repeating myself cause u won't achknowledge that and keep saying it doesn't matter, but it does. I'm begging the question because you won't answer it. And saying there's no connection to insufficient material is illogical because i.m. IS DEPENDENT ON what can be accomplished after that. If stalemate is WINNING, and is possible with normal insufficient material, then the material is no longer insufficient, is it? If your saying there's no rule about stalemate, then players will try to force it with king and 2 knights, where 2 knights IS INSUFFICIENT TO FORCE MATE, but VERY SUFFICIENT TO FORCE STALEMATE. This is the core contradiction and saying its non sequitur isn't valid unless you explain WHY. The fact that stalemate is FORCABLE doesn't make it a forfeit, as its not a decision by the opponent, but FORCABLE by the stalemating player. Making stalemate a win means that the objective of the game is to checkmate and or stalemate, therefore some insufficient positions are now sufficient, such as 2 knights vs king.

By definition, all "possible positions" are possible, and u said yourself being able to force it or not is irrelevant, as long as its possible. u just contradicted yourself. U also spent dozens of pages supporting stalemate as a win, and now your saying its an open question. If its a possible occurance, there has to be a pre-set rule for it.

If that king and 2 knights problem isn't resolved, it is completely illogical and paradoxical to make stalemate a win. U can't have stalemate a win in some endgames, but not in others. It has to be a rule for all positions then. A rule is a rule for all positions. Your claim that insufficient material relieves all obligations to move would be incorrect, because then insufficient material wouldn't apply in the 1st place. If stalemate is a win, then any pieces that can theoretically stalemate, would not be insufficient in the 1st place.

Again, not that it's relevant, but 35 moves isn't easy. That's only 15 moves shy of the limit, and I'm not convinced you made optimal moves with black in that example. For example, on move 20 you moved black against the edge, even though it wasn't forced yet.

>My point is that endgames that are normally unwinnable by checkmate shouldn't be winnable by stalemate.

Then you have a problem with the current stalemate rule. A lone king can't win by checkmate, but it can force a draw (which is a half-win) due to insufficient mating material or due to stalemate against e.g., a king and a rook pawn.

>I'm repeating myself cause u won't achknowledge that and keep saying it doesn't matter, but it does.

No, it is irrelevant, and I've already explained why.

>I'm begging the question because you won't answer it.

This sentence of yours indicates that you don't know what "begging the question" means.

>And saying there's no connection to insufficient material is illogical because i.m. IS DEPENDENT ON what can be accomplished after that.

And checkmate, which is the defined winning objective, can't happen after that. Other potential ways to win, such as by a time-forfeit, or any other type of forfeit, aren't taken into consideration, because a loss by forfeit is a case of ending the game prematurely, which is not an official objective.

>If stalemate is WINNING, and is possible with normal insufficient material, then the material is no longer insufficient, is it?

It is insufficient for checkmate. See above. Also, for the umpteenth time, stalemate isn't anything yet, because in this hypothetical game of chess, there is no stalemate rule.

>If your saying there's no rule about stalemate, then players will try to force it with king and 2 knights, where 2 knights IS INSUFFICIENT TO FORCE MATE, but VERY SUFFICIENT TO FORCE STALEMATE.

Say what? What does that have to do with me "saying there's no rule about stalemate"? Also, under the current rules, people already try to force stalemate when it is impossible for them to checkmate, and under the current rules, they get a half-win if successful.

>This is the core contradiction and saying its non sequitur isn't valid unless you explain WHY. The fact that stalemate is FORCABLE doesn't make it a forfeit, as its not a decision by the opponent, but FORCABLE by the stalemating player. Making stalemate a win means that the objective of the game is to checkmate and or stalemate, therefore some insufficient positions are now sufficient, such as 2 knights vs king.

Again, stalemate is currently a half-win, which, according to your reasoning, means that the objective of the game under the current rules is to checkmate or stalemate.

>By definition, all "possible positions" are possible

That's not what you said. You said, "The fact of the matter is stalemate is a position, and if its a position, it can be FORCED", which is false. Not all possible positions can be forced, obviously.

>and u said yourself being able to force it or not is irrelevant

It is irrelevant to the argument. It isn't, however, irrelevant to your false assertion.

> u just contradicted yourself.

Not only is that obviously false, but it's comically ironic as well. You claimed that all positions can be forced, even though you've mentioned many times that the checkmate position can't be forced in a two-knights endgame (and that's just one of countless positions which can't be forced). That's a self-contradiction on your part, obviously.

>U also spent dozens of pages supporting stalemate as a win, and now your saying its an open question.

This is getting to be beyond ridiculous. It is clear from this statement that you don't even understand the argument. I've been saying that it's an open question (which means, the point of contention in the argument, and yes, my argument is that it's a loss by forfeit) all along. Why do you think I keep pointing out when you and others are begging the question (which is a logical fallacy)? Oh yeah, you recently indicated that you don't know what "begging the question" means. At this point you've strayed so deep into left field that it's no longer an argument about the logical result of a stalemate, but rather, me pointing out your logical fallacies.

There will be more essays to come.  A normal person wonders why anyone would devote so much time and effort to an argument about something so trivial.  A normal person wouldn't.

Hey, at least he admitted it's ridiculous. It's almost as if he learned a couple phrases and feels he must use them as often as humanly possible. Begging the question, irrelevant, nonsequitor, and logical fallacy. Maybe he and Endgame can get together for Thanksgiving and discuss which came first, the chicken or the egg. You hit the nail on the head about the normal person part.

That would be the Thanksgiving from hell.  Actually, he said it's beginning to be beyond ridiculous.  Oh?  Just beginning?  As for his constant use of those words and phrases, I mentioned somewhere above that he reminds me of Bull, the bailiff on the old sitcom, Night Court.  Bull would learn a new word and use it over and over.  This guy needs to learn a few more so he can give those a rest.

I guess Max study philosophy or a related area of science, and knows the works by Popper or Kant. I just wonder why he is insisting in the present discussion with IfPatriot. Perhaps this is an attempt to use learned philosophical concepts and techniques in a question which cannot be "solved" by deriving logical conclusions from premises assumed to be true. Interesting is that the whole discussion is  been carried out in a thread that started originally as an attempt to ridicule discussions on the assumed nonsense of chess rules. 

Max, were talking about if stalemate is a win, and u know it. There has to be a rule for it obviously Whether it's a mate or forfeit, it's a win, bottom line. If a player can win by stalemate, he can win by stalemate. Insufficient mating material is defined as insufficient material to win the game in any way shape or form, and if stalemate is a winning move, then any material able to stalemate is in fact sufficient, and NOT a draw. And whether it was 35 moves or not is irrelevant. I accomplished it, period. Since stalemate is a position, one could win by it on the board, no matter what reason u consider it a win. If the game can be won with the material present, the material is sufficient. U can't have stalemate as a win in one endgame and not allowed in another endgame. The rule has to account for all positions. U can't have it both ways man. Stalemate is the most logical draw in chess and should stay that way forever.

Ironic how u talk about my fallacies, while u are committing the ultimate fallacy of not addressing any of the real problems in your argument, and instead only pointing out every technical flaw in my points, which violates the most important logic: Common Sense. Insufficient material means u can't win the game in ANY WAY. If stalemate is a win, insufficient material can become a win, which violates the objective of the game. If stalemate is just as good as checkmate, then all rules of the game have to allow for it. However, that would contradict the game objective, so it would be a major problem to make STALEmate a win.

This never-ending debate is silly in the extreme.  I think it's logical that stalemate results in a draw because it's not checkmate, which is the game's objective.  Someone else might think it's logical that it should result in a win for one side or the other.  A long time ago stalemate was controversial and treated differently in different places but eventually the chess world reached a consensus.  It is no longer controversial.  Something doesn't become controversial merely because a few cranks disagree (including a grandmaster nobody had ever heard of).  If that was the standard, everything would be controversial.  The purpose of a debate is to persuade either one's opponent or others. Once it becomes obvious that neither side can be persuaded, logic dictates that the debate ends. There is nothing to be gained. Every argument one side makes is dismissed out of hand by the other. What makes this endless debate so remarkable is that it is not only about something trivial but also about something that is not going to change even if one side could possibly prevail. It serves no purpose other than the unintended one of amusing normal people.

Let's make a list of points which speak for a discussion on the stalemate-rule's validity:

1. Will a discussion change the rule: no!

2. Do most players agree with the rule? I would say "yes!", excluding of course most beginners and few strong players, and these exceptions only "prove" the rule.

3. Would be possible to play chess with a stalemate-wins-rule? Yes, of course, as it would be possible to play chess with four kings each or with the queen with much less power than she has now. Everything is possible. I can even imagine that once people will play with a stalemate-win-rule, why not? (everything is possible). But I cannot believe that this will change in the near future.

4. Is it possible to come to a definitive conclusion about the stalemate-rule using "logic"? No, as the game developed historically, and the rules were not stipulated (or changed) as an exercise of logic. The rules were stipulated or changed for different reasons, some of them we can perhaps understand, some not. 

I have the impression that the use of logic (or we could also say "pseudo-logic) to "improve" the rules is similar to endless and emotional discussions about who is the best soccer player in the world now or in the past, or which colour is more or less "beautiful", or if water in other planets is also suited to be used for baptism (in the unlikely  case of religious humans colonising another planet). 

Useless, pointless, unnecessary discussions...

In that case, since the topic has ended in stalemate, logically Endgame wins. That way everyone gets what they want.

I agree, stalemate wins

Looks like Max gave up. (not that he woulda won anyway)

You've got to love the irony. MaximRecoil's argument that stalemate should result in a forfeit was lost by forfeit.

If he returns, you should simply inform him that he lost the argument by forfeit.  If you can't resist the temptation to continue an argument that has already ended in your favor, then you deserve to see your win become a draw.

But my point was that stalemate shouldn't be a forfeit, so that would contradict my argument LOL