Another new stupid rule in chess

Forfeit never accomplishes the goal of any game, but it is a loss nonetheless.

>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.

Yes, it's a type of forfeit if your time runs out. And there's always time control in a game, even if it's in the most informal sense. If you're playing a casual game with someone in your living room, and he gets up and leaves in the middle of the game, who won? If he comes back a few years later and claims that the game is still in progress, even if there was no prior agreement that the game might take years rather than the reasonable expectation of minutes or hours, would you agree that he didn't lose by forfeit?

>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.

It doesn't create any inconsistencies at all. If you're unwilling or unable to make a legal move, you forfeit the game. This is a universal concept that applies to all forms of competitive games and sports which don't have the option of "passing" one's turn.

>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.

It wasn't me.

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

I didn't start this thread.

6. I'm non-sequitor?

No, your paragraph was.

>Your the one whose facts are un-coordinated!

You've established no such thing.

 The objective of the game is to checkmate, and stalemate is not checkmate, therefore stalemate doesn't win accomplish the objective. The inconsistencey is that ur saying the stalemated player should lose, but that implies the opponent won, but he didn't WIN! Therefore, the other player couldn't lose either. The only solution is for the game to be a draw, since neither player won or lost. BTW, logic isn't being technically perfect in everything u say. . It is thinking straight, simply, and using common sense, nothing more

This is a non sequitur, i.e., the text you quoted doesn't in any way establish, nor even suggest, that I "feel a need for external support" for my argument. In fact, I blatantly prefaced it with:

"Not that rating has any relevance whatsoever to this question of logic"

Do you know what that means? It means I'm addressing the tangents which have nothing to do with my argument.

>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. 

No, they aren't arbitrary. They are designed to work together as a game. A "game" with arbitrary rules wouldn't even be playable, because every rule would be completely random (which is what arbitrary means), and the chances of a large set of completely random rules not conflicting with each other and resulting in a playable game are somewhere between zero and none.

>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.

There is no logical reason for making stalemate a draw; it is at odds with the universal concept of a forfeit.

I've looked at your profile and I don't see any evidence that you even play chess [on chess.com].

I fixed that for you. You didn't see any evidence that I play chess on chess.com because I don't, obviously. I don't play chess online at all, and I haven't for about a dozen years. What of it?

>It appears your only interest in this site is arguing in forums. 

No, it doesn't appear that way at all, given that I've made many posts on this forum which are not part of an argument of any sort. Your Junior Detective Kit has failed you.

You don't care what you're arguing about; you argue for the sake of arguing. 

Your crystal ball is still in need of repair.

>You admitted in one of your many posts above that you don't care about stalemate one way or the other. 

I don't, and it's not an "admission", it's simply a statement of fact. I'm not arguing for a rule change, because I don't care either way; I'm arguing about the logic of the rule. The fact that chess has an illogical stalemate rule doesn't cause me any loss of sleep whatsoever. The game is still fun either way.

>Supposedly you care only about logic.  Evidently you think it's logical to argue endlessly about something you don't care about.

You contradicted yourself with those two sentences. If I "supposedly care only about logic", as you say, and if I'm arguing about logic, then I'm arguing about something I care about, obviously. 

>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.

Objectively, an argument stands or falls on its own merits. Whether or not anyone is persuaded is irrelevant.

A forfeit trumps game objectives. As I already said, the objective of a game, any game, is never accomplished in the case of a forfeit, but a forfeit is a loss nonetheless. Spassky didn't accomplish the objective of chess in game 2 of the 1972 World Chess Championship against Fischer, but it was counted as a loss for Fischer / win for Spassky nonetheless.

Here's the contradiction to your "logic":

If stalemate isn't the objective to the game, then u can't win by it. Therefore stalemate is not a winning move.  So how can a player lose by it? How can a game be a draw for one player and a loss for the other? It can't. Therefore stalemate cannot be a win or loss for EITHER player, therefore it is a draw. That is the only consistent solution.

BTW everyone, I have officially engaged in a logical war with MaximRecoil, and anyone is invited to join either my side or his side. All bets can now be placed.

Given that you've essentially repeated yourself, see my reply in post #149.

"A forfeit trumps game objectives". Not being able to move in chess isn't a forfeit. It's not zugzwang either. It's simply not being able to move. Your facts are wrong, regardless of your ( il ) logic. Your FACTS are the problem.

I have not repeated myself. You just refuse to accept that stalemate isn't a "forfeit".

It is logically a forfeit, in accordance with the universal concept of a forfeit. If you are stalemated, it is you who is preventing the game from continuing. It is your turn to move, and you aren't moving. The other person did nothing but make perfectly legal moves.

In post #147 you said:

>The objective of the game is to checkmate, and stalemate is not checkmate, therefore stalemate doesn't win accomplish the objective.

In post #150 you said:

>If stalemate isn't the objective to the game, then u can't win by it.

So yes, you essentially repeated yourself, just as I said. Therefore my reply to post #147 also applies to post #150.

You aren't moving because you CAN'T move. That is not the universal concept of a forfeit.

The rules of chess aren't to force the king not to have any moves. The rules are to CHECK the king so that it has no moves. Forfeit doesn't trump the game objective. Stalemate is PART of the game. It isn't an extraneous factor, such as time control, not showing up..etc.

Also, even if something is logically consistent in itself doesn't mean it's reasonable in all contexts. By that reasoning, the pawns should be able to capture forward and NOT diagonally, but that would create an imbalanced,  game, so that is not the rule. Just because something is logical in itself (not that I agree with your logic), doesn't mean it's logical when integrated into the game. The rules for the game are logical for THAT GAME. They are NOT universal. Therefore, stalemate is not forfeit in chess. It is a draw.

Told ya. He's got a screw loose. No matter what you say, odds are it will be considered non sequitor, dismissed out of hand, or is irrelevant and doesn't change the fact that a stalemate is a forfeit. Trying to use logic against someone like that is a sure way to never make any progress. You have to find out what he relates to and use that to have a sensible conversation. Logic is not it.

Does anyone remember Bull, the bailiff on Night Court?  He would often learn a new word and then use it again and again throughout the episode.  MaximRecoil's constant use of non sequitur reminds me of Bull.  Someone needs to give the guy a thesaurus.

"We have all agreed in the other thread that stalemate is the most senseless rule ever since it allows a player to get a draw in a completely lost position". 

I would say only beginners hate stalemate. Most advanced players accept it as part of the game and do not complain about it.

I agree.

Stalemate doesn't accomplish the objective of the game. But the game can"t continue, so it's a draw. It's as simple as that!

I understand his logic, that if one player can't move, he losses in a sense because he.can't continue, so he losses. But u have have to ask what's the difference between stalemate and checkmate? Checkmate IS a type of Stalemate! But stalemate is not checkmate That's the logic to apply here. The goal of chess isn't to trap. The problem here is that the king is the piece being considered. Think of it this way: Stalemate can be viewed as successfully stopping your opponent from moving, but not necessarily that u would be able to destroy him the next move, if u could make a next move. Even if u say, the opponent can't make a legal move, so he loses, but this is not being able to make a legal move IN CONTEXT OF THE GAME, not external factors such as not showing up..etc. Stalemate is based on THE POSITION. Its logical in terms of the objective of the game, regardless of whether it makes sense itself. Look at En Passant. Taking a piece on a different square then the piece is on. Completely counter intuitive, but having the rule makes sense for the purpose of the game. Same thing with stalemate