Another new stupid rule in chess

I got curious and googled Larry Kaufman.  His FIDE rating is 2256.  He was born in 1947 and became a GM (automatically) in 2008 by winning the World Senior Championship.  Good grief!  No wonder I had never heard of the guy.  Well, Kaufman's got at least one fan.

You should try actually reading posts before replying. I've only mentioned Kaufman in order to refute false assertions or suggestions made by other people. The first time, someone suggested the stalemate rule is only controversial on this forum. Kaufman and T. H. Tylor prove that suggestion wrong. Then the same person that I told this to, who apparently dislikes reading just as much as you do, later said that he didn't know of anyone who supports a stalemate being a win outside of low-rated and unrated players on this forum. So I repeated what I'd already posted to him.

>Interesting that of all the thousands of grandmasters, past and present, Kaufman is apparently the only one MaximRecoil can come up with who shares his view.

This is another example of your failure to read. I originally copied and pasted from the Wikipedia article, which mentions Larry Kaufman and T. H. Tylor.

I haven't mentioned either person for the purpose of supporting my argument. I don't need any external support for my argument, because it's a question of logic. In a stalemate position, the player to move, doesn't move. That's logically a forfeit. If you believe that a stalemate should be a draw then you are supporting an illogical rule. There's no law against supporting an illogical rule of course, but it's odd that you either can't admit or can't understand that it's an illogical rule.

It is illogical because u shouldn't win if u didn't attack the king. If u just trap it, u only did half the job, so both players deserve half a point. Very logical. And zuzwang refers to being able to move, but any move loses, NOT being UNABLE to move. Stalemate is one of the most logical rules of chess. The 50 move rule shouldn't exist though.

So people shouldn't win if their opponent runs out of time, because they weren't necessarily attacking the king at the time? People shouldn't win if their opponent doesn't show up at all, because they weren't attacking the king? It's a forfeit. It doesn't matter what's going on in the game. The person to move, doesn't move, so it's logically a forfeit.

Your opinion about chessplayers proves itself regarding you.

He was talking about winning based on the position on the board. And you know it. Now you are just sounding desperate because you can't decide if you should keep defending an obvious (to everyone else) silly idea.  As was said before, there are many ways to lose a game of chess, time, dress code violation, illegal move, etc. but only ONE way to lose based on position and that's checkmate, not stalemate. That is what the whole discussion is about. Do you even play chess?

And I was illustrating that it's irrelevant, because checkmate isn't the only way to win in chess. You can also win by forfeit, just as you can in any other competition. Stalemate is logically a forfeit for the stalemated player.

>Now you are just sounding desperate because you can't decide if you should keep defending an obvious (to everyone else) silly idea. 

So you don't like to read either? I've been saying the same thing all along. See post #44 where I said:

"In any case, the person who has no legal move should lose. He's the one who can't continue, thus, logically, he forfeits the game."

And I've said the same thing in a thread here years ago. You can't refute it because a player who is unwilling or unable to continue is universally considered a forfeit regardless of the type of game or competition. Forfeit is a universal concept, and it absolutely applies to stalemate. When player B is in the position we call stalemate, he has two options:

1. Make a move. It will be an illegal move by definition, which = forfeit.

2. Don't make a move. Chess has no option to "pass" your turn, so: forfeit.

>As was said before, there are many ways to lose a game of chess, time, dress code violation, illegal move, etc. but only ONE way to lose based on position and that's checkmate, not stalemate.

So?

>That is what the whole discussion is about.

No, you don't get to define what the discussion is about. I said that stalemate is logically a loss by forfeit for the stalemated player, and until that's logically refuted, it stands.

>Do you even play chess?

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

That's probably true because grandmasters tend to be very logical. The better someone gets, the more they understand the reasons for the stalemate rule. Beginners sometimes believe that if a king is trapped and not attacked, and its the trapped kings move, that means the game was won by the side that trapped the king. Only until they get better, or at least understand the game, do they realize that a win can only come from an attack on the king. I remember when I was learning how to move the pieces, trying to remember all the different ways a game can end in a tie was difficult, but remembering how to win was easy, because there is only one way.

1. Just because you can't move doesn't mean u forfeit!!! An illegal move isn't a forfeit, cause you can't make the move to begin with! Where did u get that idea? Forfeiting is willfully resigning because you know you lost. In stalemate, u DIDN'T LOSE, u just can't move, which mean NEITHER PLAYER can move, so it's a deadlock, draw.

2. Time control applies to BOTH players, so that argument isn't valid. WTF does time control have to do with anything? Were talking about rules of the game, not REGULATORY rules, such as time control and the 50 move rule

3. Think of it this way: If a SWAT team surrounds a building where a criminal is in, but never go in, the criminal doesn't have to do anything. Were talking about rules of the game, not REGULATORY rules, such as time control and the 50 move rule.

4. Let's say stalemate is a win for the last player to move? How does this affect the game? Is the king allowed to move into check? What if a player moves into check and the opponent doesn't see it? Does he still win automatically? You need to specify how all the other rules would be changed correspondingly to validate your argument. I understand what your saying, the player has no moves, so he should lose. You eliminated all his possible moves, so he loses, but to win a chess game, YOUR MOVE has to be winning, and the last move of the game. Players have to alternate moves, so if one player can't move, the game can't continue. Besides, what's the point in stalemating if your not going to attack the king after?

5. Repetition SHOULD NOT be a win in any way, shape or form. All repetition means is that that's the only move u can make without losing aka forcing a draw. It seems as if you're trying to make all drawing moves wins. What next? why can't u castle through check, castle after u move your king, only take en passant the 1st move? These are all logical rules and give me one of them that u think is illogical and I'll explain why it's logical. The best way to put it is this: In chess, u strike the man whose down until he's dead.

Endgame

When you explain how the game works to a beginner like that, normally they say "oh, that makes sense, now I get it". Sometimes it takes a little longer but they eventually understand, because it's literally the only way the game can work unless we make up new rules about kings being able to be in adjacent squares, wins not requiring a king attack, etc. I've decided the person you are thinking about is either a professional beginner, vowing to never ever understand how the game is played OR has a screw loose. Because he cant or wont comprehend even the most basic simple logical reasons for the rules of the game it's probably in my best interest to let him figure out himself how to tighten that screw.

First, show me this survey of all, or even the "vast vast vast majority" of grandmasters. Second, show me the study which conclusively links "being very logical" with being a grandmaster. Third, a grandmaster has more inherent bias toward the keeping the existing rules of chess than anyone, because their gameplay would be affected the most by any changes to the rules. A rule change like that would result in many years of study and experience suddenly losing value.

>The better someone gets, the more they understand the reasons for the stalemate rule. Beginners sometimes believe that if a king is trapped and not attacked, and its the trapped kings move, that means the game was won by the side that trapped the king. Only until they get better, or at least understand the game, do they realize that a win can only come from an attack on the king. I remember when I was learning how to move the pieces, trying to remember all the different ways a game can end in a tie was difficult, but remembering how to win was easy, because there is only one way.

All of this is irrelevant, because it boils down to a forfeit, logically speaking, and nothing is going to change that. Does that mean the illogical stalemate rule should be changed? That's a different question altogether.

How is it a forfeit? You can't make an illegal move, so by saying an illegal move is a forfeit is a contradiction right there, because your not PERMITTED to make the move. 2nd, not being able to move any pieces period, not even illegal moves, isn't the same. There's being able to move a king to a square, but it would be in check, and not being able to move ANY PIECES ANYWHERE, like in this position:

There are 2 different types of not being able to move. Why should a game that's deadlocked, where no one can move anything at all be declared a win for one side?

Here's a simple example, u might say, ohh why was black so stupid to end up in that position. Well I say, why can a player with a queen be stupid enough to stalemate me?

Yes, it does, logically speaking.

>An illegal move isn't a forfeit, cause you can't make the move to begin with!

Yes, it is, and yes, you can. Do you think God Almighty slaps a force field on you to prevent you from making an illegal move? If you make an illegal move, full stop, then you lose by forfeit. If you are the player to move, and you don't move, full stop, you lose by forfeit.

>Where did u get that idea?

Forfeit is a universal concept which applies to all forms of competition.

>In stalemate, u DIDN'T LOSE, u just can't move, which mean NEITHER PLAYER can move, so it's a deadlock, draw.

In stalemate, one player made a legal move every time it was his turn, but it is now the other player's turn and he doesn't move, thus he has logically forfeited the game.

>2. Time control applies to BOTH players, so that argument isn't valid.

What? Stalemate applies to both players too.

>WTF does time control have to do with anything? Were talking about rules of the game, not REGULATORY rules, such as time control and the 50 move rule

I already told you. A time forfeit is an example of losing without your king necessarily being under attack. This negates the following assertion of yours:

"It is illogical because u shouldn't win if u didn't attack the king."

>3. Think of it this way: If a SWAT team surrounds a building where a criminal is in, but never go in, the criminal doesn't have to do anything. Were talking about rules of the game, not REGULATORY rules, such as time control and the 50 move rule.

That situation isn't a competitive sport or game. Chess is a turn-based game with no option to "pass" your turn.

>4. Let's say stalemate is a win for the last player to move? How does this affect the game? Is the king allowed to move into check? What if a player moves into check and the opponent doesn't see it? Does he still win automatically? You need to specify how all the other rules would be changed correspondingly to validate your argument. I understand what your saying, the player has no moves, so he should lose. You eliminated all his possible moves, so he loses, but to win a chess game, YOUR MOVE has to be winning, and the last move of the game. Players have to alternate moves, so if one player can't move, the game can't continue. Besides, what's the point in stalemating if your not going to attack the king after?

How it affects the game isn't relevant to the question. The question is strictly a matter of logic.

>5. Repetition SHOULD NOT be a win in any way, shape or form. All repetition means is that that's the only move u can make without losing aka forcing a draw. It seems as if you're trying to make all drawing moves wins. What next? why can't u castle through check, castle after u move your king, only take en passant the 1st move? These are all logical rules and give me one of them that u think is illogical and I'll explain why it's logical. The best way to put it is this: In chess, u strike the man whose down until he's dead.

Nothing you typed in that paragraph has any relevance to my argument, nor does any of it follow from anything I've said (i.e., it's a non sequitur).

lock the thread

1. The objective of the game comes before the rules. The goal of the game is to attack the enemy king so that he can't escape in any way. Stalemate doesn't accomplish that, so it is not a win. The objective of chess in not to eliminate all the opponent's moves. Stalemate being a win would change the objective of the game.

2. Time control has nothing to do with the game ITSELF. It's a way to keep games from taking too long. They make it so u lose if u lose on time so you don't keep playing.

3. What relevance does it have to game. A game has to be consistent. Stalemate being a win creates many inconsistencies in the game. Being a draw is the only consistent solution.

4. Someone said something earlier in this thread that repetition should be a win or something, maybe wasn't u, NVM. That makes no sense whatsoever.

5. How it affects the game is irrelevant? Then why did u start this thread at all?

6. I'm non-sequitor? Your the one whose facts are un-coordinated!

@ 140

No they aren't!!! They are all easily possible!!! Explain.

No they aren't! I'll show you:

Obviously you feel a need for external support or you wouldn't have said this to doggone2:

"Not that rating has any relevance whatsoever to this question of logic, but I'd be willing to wager good money that both of those guys outrank you."

And you wouldn't have said this to EndgameStudy:

"As for people allegedly not understanding two major concepts, do you think, e.g., Grandmaster Larry Kaufman, understands less about chess than you?"

You go on endlessly about the logic of making stalemate a win for the stalemating player but what you fail to understand is that all chess rules are arbitrary, including the most basic ones, such as how the pieces move and capture.  Checkmate is an arbitrary rule.  If different rules were established, one could legally move into check, capture the king or pass instead of moving.  One can come up with logical reasons for making stalemate a draw or win just as one can come up with logical reasons for limiting a pawn's initial move to one square or allowing the option of two squares.  I believe it is more logical to make stalemate a draw because the goal of chess is checkmate.  That is how the game is won.  If a player is stalemated, he has no legal move and the game must end.  If the game ends without checkmate (or resignation in lieu of eventual checkmate or time expiration), the game should be drawn.

I've looked at your profile and I don't see any evidence that you even play chess.  It appears your only interest in this site is arguing in forums.  You don't care what you're arguing about; you argue for the sake of arguing.  You admitted in one of your many posts above that you don't care about stalemate one way or the other.  Supposedly you care only about logic.  Evidently you think it's logical to argue endlessly about something you don't care about.  Debating with you is a waste of time because your objective is not persuasion but argument as an end in itself.  I'm not going to respond to your nonsense again.