Chess.com Called a False Stalemate
Sort:
I don't understand the issue people have with stalemate. Maybe it's a higher rating thing. Stalemate is literally never an issue in my games. Just don't stalemate your opponent. :/ With a king and queen there is a very simple way to force mate that requires slight technique. Don't be upset because it's not, -Blindly corner king with queen one square away- Opponent looks at the floor, kicks some dirt, you take that as him passing and checkmate him. I think the stalemate rules add a neat element to the game.
What really gets me though is that the OP concluded first that his knowledge of chess was absolute after just starting real chess and then assumed that the millions of games online and the countless people that maintain the servers, the thousands of forums, he concluded that everyone made a mistake and he was going to correct them because his game didn't end the way he thought it was supposed to. What ever happened to questioning your own knowledge?
Jun 19, 2016
0
#24
Clearly the author of the original post is clueless on how to play chess. Putting one self in check is an illegal move. Therefore, Black has no legal move and Black is not in check. Barring voluntary resignation or the clock hitting 0, you can not claim a win without your opponent being in check, and your opponent has no legal move. Pass is not legal Therefore, there is no legal way for the game to proceed and neither king is attacked. By definition that is a draw. Maybe the OP should learn how to play the game than crying like a baby saying he wants to close his account due to the fact that Tic Tac Toe may be more appropriate for his level of thought process!
Clever stalemate trap in that game. I was trying to find a way to avoid it but one the exchange sac, it's forced or he'll stay the exchange down
This is definite a stalemate!
Naifmando56 wrote:
So you say.....you're 4 centuries old? Or, the more rational people would say, you didn't know the international rules. Just live with it bro, it happened to me as well.
I played 5 years with rules I was taught by my grandad. Pawns couldn't move 2 squares, at the first turn each player got 2 moves. No castling, Kings could move once in the game like a knight if they weren't given a check before.
Go to wikipedia and read up ALL the rules, maybe there's something else you may have missed?
embraced your post, and empathized with a tinge of a smile
· did not know of ep
· did not know casting could not be done in check (or into a check)
I lived unschooled with that concept for a year or more, then found chess.com
and I am still being schooled(got all the rules down though)
Jun 19, 2016
0
#29
The kid is probably 8y old or so and maybe has 5 games in his whole life playing with his sister. Most likely he already forgat about this website by now.
Perhaps there are many places on earth where chess is played by very different rules and rules like an pasan, castling, stalemate, checkmate and others don't exist or are different. But stalemate rule is very commonly mistaken by kids anywhere.
I remember very clear the time i was 10y old and i was playing with my brothers friend chess. I was winning and intentionally wanted to be left with rook and king vs king becouse is hardest checkmate that i knew and wanted to show my power. He said i can't checkmate him, specially in the corner. I did it and then he said is not checkmate becouse when king is alone he can move 2-3 times the king in a row if necessary. So i must had another pieces to control those other squares..
AIM-AceMove wrote:
The kid is probably 8y old or so and maybe has 5 games in his whole life playing with his sister. Most likely he already forgat about this website by now.
Perhaps there are many places on earth where chess is played by very different rules and rules like an pasan, castling, stalemate, checkmate and others don't exist or are different. But stalemate rule is very commonly mistaken by kids anywhere.
I remember very clear the time i was 10y old and i was playing with my brothers friend chess. I was winning and intentionally wanted to be left with rook and king vs king becouse is hardest checkmate that i knew and wanted to show my power. He said i can't checkmate him, specially in the corner. I did it and then he said is not checkmate becouse when king is alone he can move 2-3 times the king in a row if necessary. So i must had another pieces to control those other squares..
17, playing with multiple friends as a hobby, actually. Stalemate is the only rule I didn't know about. Please keep the insults down. I may be newer to professional chess but I know how forums work, honey. Forget it, it's done now.
Lasker1900, I give you the comment of the year!
Inexorable88 wrote:
What really gets me though is that the OP concluded first that his knowledge of chess was absolute after just starting real chess and then assumed that the millions of games online and the countless people that maintain the servers, the thousands of forums, he concluded that everyone made a mistake and he was going to correct them because his game didn't end the way he thought it was supposed to. What ever happened to questioning your own knowledge?
Excuse me, I've accepted the rule now. Whoever said I didn't question myself? I was confused because I thought that the computer had made an error in its deduction, but found out it was just a rule instead. Technology does bug, you know. I was just making sure it was alright.
ThrillerFan wrote:
Clearly the author of the original post is clueless on how to play chess. Putting one self in check is an illegal move. Therefore, Black has no legal move and Black is not in check. Barring voluntary resignation or the clock hitting 0, you can not claim a win without your opponent being in check, and your opponent has no legal move. Pass is not legal Therefore, there is no legal way for the game to proceed and neither king is attacked. By definition that is a draw. Maybe the OP should learn how to play the game than crying like a baby saying he wants to close his account due to the fact that Tic Tac Toe may be more appropriate for his level of thought process!
I know how to play the game. This was the only rule I was unsure of. Also, you people obviously don't follow real forum etiquette. Not a single one of you has been nice at all.
Not understanding the stalemate rule is an understandable mistake for someone who's probably only played by "house rules", rather than under international rules. And, while stalemates do happen at higher levels, usually it's a result of just not knowing good endgame technique. So, dear thread starter, here's how you could have checkmated your opponent a few moves later -
Instead of Rxh4 the better move would have been Qh8+
CMANsurvives escribió:
ThrillerFan wrote:
Clearly the author of the original post is clueless on how to play chess. Putting one self in check is an illegal move. Therefore, Black has no legal move and Black is not in check. Barring voluntary resignation or the clock hitting 0, you can not claim a win without your opponent being in check, and your opponent has no legal move. Pass is not legal Therefore, there is no legal way for the game to proceed and neither king is attacked. By definition that is a draw. Maybe the OP should learn how to play the game than crying like a baby saying he wants to close his account due to the fact that Tic Tac Toe may be more appropriate for his level of thought process!
I know how to play the game. This was the only rule I was unsure of. Also, you people obviously don't follow real forum etiquette. Not a single one of you has been nice at all.
You could have a point, if not for the style showed in posts 13 and 14, for example.
Pulpofeira wrote:
CMANsurvives escribió:
ThrillerFan wrote:
Clearly the author of the original post is clueless on how to play chess. Putting one self in check is an illegal move. Therefore, Black has no legal move and Black is not in check. Barring voluntary resignation or the clock hitting 0, you can not claim a win without your opponent being in check, and your opponent has no legal move. Pass is not legal Therefore, there is no legal way for the game to proceed and neither king is attacked. By definition that is a draw. Maybe the OP should learn how to play the game than crying like a baby saying he wants to close his account due to the fact that Tic Tac Toe may be more appropriate for his level of thought process!
I know how to play the game. This was the only rule I was unsure of. Also, you people obviously don't follow real forum etiquette. Not a single one of you has been nice at all.
You could have a point, if not for the style showed in posts 13 and 14, for example.
+1 can't agree more
Darth that mating technique was wildly unnecessary. Rf1, H3, Rf7, (H2 or hxg2), Rh7#
I agree that some chess.com peeps are rude, mostly b/c they had encountered troll posts many times before. Although I do know that your question was genuine, your follow-up posts were abrasive. Most, if not all would find deleting-the-account-for-drawing-one-game childish and unnecessary. Also, your way of thinking that "if I had never seen it before it is ridiculous (refer to post 14)" is downright parochial and disrespectful to the 21st century folks. Before you speak about forum etiquette please remember that you took part in inciting this insult-fest.
Or even Rf1, H3, Rf6#
So you say.....you're 4 centuries old? Or, the more rational people would say, you didn't know the international rules. Just live with it bro, it happened to me as well.
I played 5 years with rules I was taught by my grandad. Pawns couldn't move 2 squares, at the first turn each player got 2 moves. No castling, Kings could move once in the game like a knight if they weren't given a check before.
Go to wikipedia and read up ALL the rules, maybe there's something else you may have missed?
That must have been a traumatic childhood. How are you coping with the new rules?
Not exactly traumatic. I didn't find it too difficult to adapt, though. It was about 6 years back when I got to know the truth. Anyways, Thanks for asking, cheers.