two knights...
Do you like/dislike the stalemate rule?
Sort:
Mar 30, 2012
0
#23
I LOVE Stalemate! Gotten heaps.. wish I could see their faces when I get one in a seemingly hopelessly lost game. I never let anyone get one against me though not since the first time it happened. I'm on high guard against them and always in full throttle in trying to get them. Most of my draws are from stalemates I've won.
paulgottlieb wrote:
Any moron could just push the pawn down the board until he clumsily stalemated his opponent, beat his chest, screaming "I win! I win," and then eat a banana
...all of which pretty much describes my tournament strategy.
Apr 1, 2012
0
#26
i don't believe the rule is there to be liked or disliked; if the king can't move, the game ends. it's pretty logical.
Now en passant, on the other hand...
AndyClifton wrote:
Now en passant, on the other hand...
Ah now here's a fun one... The poor pawns know they are merely fodder unless they survive til the endgame, but en passant gives them something interesting to do should they make it to the 5th rank. They know their chances of promotion on the 8th is slim to none, so the opportunity of pulling a sneaky is indeed their fondest hope. They laugh when newer players are caught off guard, thinking their own pawns safe when they try & squeeze by and are unexpectedly disemboweled. Muhahaha!
Curiously, I see pawns promoted far more often than captured en passant. one would think that it would be the other way around considering 5th rank is much easier to reach than the 8th.
Is that a joke? Or are you truly surprised?
... I like any rule which counts in my favor. :P
Seriously, though, I wrote an e-mail about a game I thought should have been called a draw:
In this one game, both my opponent and I each had three pawns blocking each other on their respective ranks, (with no other pieces on the board except our kings). I felt, since the kings were the only figures left on the board which could make legal moves, the game should have been declared a stalemate.
Apr 2, 2012
0
#32
jojofan85 wrote:
In this one game, both my opponent and I each had three pawns blocking each other on their respective ranks, (with no other pieces on the board except our kings). I felt, since the kings were the only figures left on the board which could make legal moves, the game should have been declared a stalemate.
I assume you mean the pawns were actually on staggered ranks, so each person's pawns were on a single color, which would lock them up (otherwise the pawns could just capture one another). But the pawns still have the potential to start making legal moves again if a King gets around behind them and captures one, thus breaking out one or more of his own pawns. Not a draw condition.
reply to chrisr2212:
I don't know, it's not mine. 
Apr 2, 2012
0
#34
chrisr2212 wrote:
what's the top speed on that one-wheel motorbike jojo ?
Whatever it is, it's probably the world's fastest face-plant.
Prior to 1807 stalemate was considered a win for the person giving it, and I think it should have stayed that way.
Apr 25, 2012
0
#38
im in my 40,s and the stalemate rule has been the same since i was a little kid and before,it is part of the rules of the game so yes i like it and i think its fair.
In my most recent encounter, I dislike the stalemate rule because I had my opponent's king pinned in the corner by my queen and castle. I wanted to clean out the rest of his positions before claiming a checkmate. Unfortunately my opponent called a draw and what should have been 30 points added to my blitz score resulted in only a 9 point increase. So in this instance, I call BS to this stalemate rule.
Now that's a rook!...