Chess.com Called a False Stalemate
Sort:
I don't think many posters intended to be rude. I tend to be a bit forward because many people tend to post like, 'I was absolutely dominating my opponent when....' 'I crucified my opponent with strong play.' 'The world is wrong and this game shouldn't have been a stalemate.' If you're not GM, you don't know squat about chess, myself included. Even if you are GM, have a little humility. Your original post should have been, 'Game was a stalemate and I'm not sure why. New to chess.com.'
As a follow up, obviously not only GMs know anything about chess but I hope you understand the point I'm making. Unless you're a GM, it's a learning process and even as a GM, it's still a learning process. Show some humility
Jun 19, 2016
0
#43
CMANsurvives wrote:
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.
Have you ever been on any forum anywhere people are almost exclusively jerks especially when the question could be answered by a quick google search.
7/10 intro, 6/10 follow-up.
Jun 19, 2016
0
#45
macer75 wrote:
CMANsurvives wrote:
Well then. Anyone know how to delete my account?
lol...
Macer, you're the expert here. Shall we say...troll?
Jun 19, 2016
0
#46
For those who are actually interested in the topic, here's a blog posted today:
https://www.chess.com/blog/SamCopeland/stalemate-should-totes-be-a-win
Darth_Algar wrote:
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+
Even better than that is 1.Rh2 h3 2.Rxh3 h4 3.Rxh4#. No reason to let the black king off the edge of the board, even for a second.
CMANsurvives wrote:
Also, you people obviously don't follow real forum etiquette. Not a single one of you has been nice at all.
I was the first to answer your post.
I linked to your game and confirmed it was stalemate.
You questioned my reply so I expanded further on the stalemate rule and provided you with a link.
Your response was to ask how you could close your account. Only then did I respond by calling your action childish.
You will get great advice on these forums, but to start off insisting you are in the right and that chess.com has a problem which needs to be fixed, and that you will close your account, when it is your own knowlege that is lacking is a sure fire way to alienate those who are trying to help you.
When playing a beginner offline, just try capturing en passant. You'll need a copy of the rules to show him/her. Even then, they might accuse you of making that up and printing it out. (Also, castling Queen-side.)
Jun 19, 2016
0
#51
KantWasWrong wrote:
When playing a beginner offline, just try capturing en passant. You'll need a copy of the rules to show him/her. Even then, they might accuse you of making that up and printing it out. (Also, castling Queen-side.)
Yeap, it's nightmare when you play chess vs someone with big , big, big Ego and trash talker like this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5vnpOp0U_g
Inexorable88 wrote:
Darth that mating technique was wildly unnecessary. Rf1, H3, Rf7, (H2 or hxg2), Rh7#
Or even Rf1, H3, Rf6#
Absolutely. Kudos for that.
(In my own defense I was still half hungover and not thinking entirely clearly when I posted earlier.)
To win a game you need to arrive at the point of performing checkmate. You need to take care the game gives BOTH you and your opponent the chance to make a legal move and continue the game. If either player is prevented from making the next move then play is stopped with no checkmate delivered -- drawn. It is like two teams play football or cricket under floodlights. If floodlights fail they are not allowed to play on in the dark. The referee rules no result has been achieved and the game is drawn.
Mrs Beaton wrote, "To make rabbit pie, first catch a rabbit." To win a game under agreed rules, first agree the rules.
Mrs Beaton wrote, thTo win a game
CMANsurvives wrote:
Well then. Anyone know how to delete my account?
There you go. That's the spirit!
Jun 19, 2016
0
#55
Looks like you have been baptised by fire at the chess.com forums...
dont let the posters steer you away from this amazing chess playing and learning website... Ive been here since 2008 and have used it to help coach kids and have improved my own game.
Smooth sailing in all your games...
:)
In a certain level, Stalemate is just frustrating and doesn't make sense: you are up a lot of pieces, you restrict their pieces, you should win, etc.
But as you improve you will come across many positions where stalemate being a draw adds complexity and nuance to the game. Take this position:
With White to move
This is a straightforward draw, but only because black can force a stalemate if white pushes the pawn.
It adds a level of complexity to EVERY king and pawn endgame, otherwise most would be pretty simple.
Let' look at the Philidor position, a well-known draw in a rook and pawn endgame.
White to move and draw
The idea being that the king has no cover, and there are infinite checks. Let's look at this game when stalemate is an win.
Here's another:
White to move
An interesting way to salvage a draw for white.
An even more crazy way: (this is a very common theme, I've had many games on both sides where this idea is attempted.)
White to move
These were relatively simple positions, you can find much more complicated and beautiful ones along the same theme. The problem is that without stalemate material suddenly becomes more important: being up a pawn is suddenly much more winning than before. Not entirely a bad thing, but it uncomplicates the game and you will be hard-pressed to find strong players who would be on your side against stalemate. It means you can't take risks in the same way you can currently.
Dec 1, 2020
0
#57
If you are loads of material up the best thing to do is try to checkmate as quickly as possible. Don't waste time capturing all of your opponents remaining pieces or promoting all your pawns to queens etc.
calal614 wrote:
just learned the this rule as i started to play chess. Shouldn't there be an exception or something to obvious games. I could've checked earlier and played better but under clock you forget so yea
If you want to be treated like a child then perhaps yes.
However this is a site for serious chess. Learn the rules as you play. There is no shame in not knowing them, and ask on here and people will explain them.
Chess rules have been pretty much the same for a few centuries now....they wont be changed for you.
Dec 1, 2020
0
#59
Is there something counter-intuitive about learning the rules prior to playing a game?
