Another new stupid rule in chess

It's more like Max was CHECKMATED.

No, he lost the argument by forfeit.  The stalemated player cannot move.  He was free to continue arguing but he chose to leave instead.  If your argument were a chess game, he would have lost by forfeit.  You won.  Accept your victory.  Reject any rematch request.

Guys, you're still here I don't beleive this! 

I've left you 20 days ago after I had left few comments (65, 68, 91, 92) I remember that I thought about you: What increadibly brilliant people, standing with their sides firmly armed with logic and intelligence. I was really admiring your efforts and your brain strenghts to fight with your debate oponents (so I admire Max too) using all logic facilities you could have found. Of course, after I had given you my opinion about the topic I've left you because I have my life to live, not to waste it in discussions without ending. But today I accidentally open up "another new stupid rule..." and find you are all here, like 20 days ago: one for stalemate win, others for draw... Still the same target, the same distance... Unbeleiveble!

It looks to me that you stuck in a dark hole and only one can be... but this highlander's moto is for the ones who can live forever like Connor McLoud from the clahn McLoud  

So I briefely have read your last 20 days comments and could say: I agree with every sentence you've said (included Max's  ) but solution of the debate is not in kind of logic which Max promotes. Why?

Simply, he is obsserving chess rules as a kind of binary code sistem...10101010 1move for W 0 move for B, 1 for W, 0 for B, 1 for W ...Oh there is no 0 for B, so he lost the game! - says computer and click shut down button. Max forgets one simple point: Chess was not invented by computer and robot and not for computers and robots, so this kind of blind robotic logic is outpointed. Chess as a game is made for human beings who can see the whole picture, not only counting binary 1s and 0s, who can feel injustice in the game which can ruine the higher logic of the universe then can it be the logic of 1s and 0s counting, who feels with more then one dry logic sense who feels with emotions of the battle, imagination of stories between two kingdoms in war, and for everything what makes chess more then game but less then science and partly the art ... in the heart of chess might be hidden simply a gods expression of human lives or some perfect message from the Universe to humans and that cannot to be revealed to robots but only to men. So, robots like logic 10101010 is dismissed and man is the one who creates the rules of the game for the men not for the robots.

Nobody says that stalemate can't be counted as a win for stalemating side, except logic of justice. Through the centuries ruling objective of the game - CHECKMATE becomes synonym for THE ONLY RIGHT WAY TO WIN and that is the LAW of this game, like it Max or not. That is simply the chess justice. Period.

Evidently he put a lot of time into that dissertation.  I wonder if anybody will bother reading it.

I read it! He has a similar opinion as me: the game was developed in a historical context. People somehow though that you should not kill the king. We can understand the rule in a historical context: kings were often not killed but died on prison. So stalemate perhaps reflects this tradition, who knows? In any case:

WE DON'T KILL KINGS HERE! WE PUT THEM ON PRISON, TORTURE THEM IF NECESSARY OF IF  WE LIKE, BUT DON'T KILL THEM!

Okay, this with the torture is weird, but you got my point, right? Just don't try to kill them! Only in blitz, of course, but only OTB. But let him at least a chance to survive if he cannot escape, we are all humans, or not?

Yep ya dam right I won. I WILL NOT accept any rematch requests. Don't worry, my (our) victory is secure.

Thank you.  I don't care so much about the victory.  MaximRecoil's only interest is arguing.  If nobody bothers arguing with him here, he'll find another place to argue.

We should track him down and see what he's arguing over now.

If you track him down, don't bring that insufferable snob back.  

No way. Just a spying mission. He'll never trace me.

I wouldn't be sure that you (we) guys won from the Max's point of view. Don't forget: if we ask for a draw in stalemate position then we must admit this debate draw. If we say that Max lost this logical battle by forfeit because he has stopped answering  (he was a stalemated side, no move, no answer, no surrender in arguments) then you (we) admit that stalemated side must lose the game.  And suddenly Max becomes the winer of the debate. 

So I hope Max will return and continue this infinite problem. Till that happens we must  count this argue as a draw (if not, he will live in silent triumph and will be the loser who won in this 302 posts long debate.) 

Personaly I think that Max's logic is stronger in arguing with EndgameStudy due to his simplicity and he (Max) got him (Endgame Study) in the moments when ES goes into deep analyses of forsing, nonforcing, materialy (in)sufficient, etc. cases what is realy irelevant for knocking down Max's binary 1010101 argument. 

Max must come up here and admit that rolsrojs'es historical and human oriented arguments are enough to beat his binary code logic. If he don't, I would take it as a debate's draw and will never say people about my win (or it won't be win ).   At least he must admit that in this case his kind of logic must make a room for an exception. Then we both can be the winners and go to drink a beer, lock this forum topic and lose the key.

My arguments were flaws in his logic, so the forcing and non forcing stuff was relevant

It's a paradox. If Max forfeit his argument that stalemate should be a loss by forfeit, then he loses the argument, so stalemate must be a draw. 

No. What you say isn't paradox. It simply means that you won argument about stalemate. But what I say is: Max traped us into paradoxical similarity of forfeiting the argument and bieng stalemated side in the chess game. So he sends us his message: "If you think that is such kind of verbal stalemate my loss then you must admit that stalemated oponent in the chess game must lose the game". And through this kind of paradox his philosophy has got thriumphal finale.

This was his plan all along. To make us think that we won the argument, thereby supporting the argument of stalemate being a win.

RECAP: Here's a HUGE FLAW in his claim that: Insufficient mating material ends all stalemate possibilities:

If white has no mating material, how could he be allowed to win by stalemate. That's the thing he didn't consider. ONE-SIDED insufficient material positions.

Come on, guys.  My claim that he lost the argument by forfeit was made with tongue-in-cheek.  My guess is he left because he eventually got tired of saying the same things over and over.  It's amazing that it took him so long.

It wasn't us. He wouldn't acknowledge any of our points that were flaws in his arguments, so HE was the one repeating himself, NOT US.

In fact the fallacy max used was using SIMPLE LOGIC in a COMPOUND LOGIC argument

So if you want to win the argument don't be the winner in these circumstances. Say: This argument is a draw! Especially, because it looks nearly like threefold repetition more then stalemate. He repeated only few sentences all the time on every move you've made. Only with that conclusion that his forfeiting this game caused as a result DRAW, you can tell him that  only correct way to treat STALEMATE IN CHESS IS A DRAW.. 

Again, that is the question of general justice in such cases where one side don't accept loss in argument but don't want to  (or can't) arguing more... very similar to chess stalemate.

So my argument was in this area and is connected with higher principles of life and egzistence where Max must fall. His logic is obvious and simple, so he must allow an exception in its basis because of the higher aim and admits necessity of it.