FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Now of course, if you gain an advantage an lose it to your own blunders, then it is your fault. However, I personally do not consider putting your opponent in a stalemate to be a fault.
Anyway, thanks for your guys's responses so far (though I'm saddened to see no one shares my opinions )
Au contraire; it is the player with the stalemated king who has achieved the stalemate. In other words, despite the odds being against him, he has found a way to safety. You didn't beat him. He didn't beat you either. Draw.
Now that make more sense.
Look at it this way: Dad goes hunting. He chases the animal, he wounds the animal, he trees the animal. But try as he might, he can't get the animal. How many people get fed?
@Wewsson: There are several ways to draw. The situation you mention is called repetition of position, not a stalemate. Stalemate refers only to the case wherein a player has no legal move, and is not in check. Other draws are by agreement, and insufficient mating material on both sides.
You may also have heard of a "book draw", which is not actually a draw, but which often leads to a draw by agreement because it is known that neither player can win unless the other blunders. An example of this might be (always depending upon the particular position, of course) king and rook, versus king and bishop, or even king and rook versus king and rook.
[Edit: Oh, and here's another way to draw: time runs out on a player, in which case ordinarily he loses, but his opponent has insufficient mating material (when you're down to insufficient mating material, the best you can hope for is a draw).]
@Wewsson: Hey, buddy, get used to it. It's called Chess.
However, and although many of you will disagree with me, I personally have always viewed the objective of chess is to acquire an advantage from an equal position that can lead to a victory. I place value upon the process of gaining and advantage, not the capture of the king, even though the former generally translates into the later.
Respectfully, Bebopox, I am one of the many who will disagree with you here as well. The very first thing a beginning chess player learns is that the object of the game is to checkmate your opponent. Nothing else. The acquistion of advantage is only a way to do that. When a player checkmates his opponent without acquiring an advantage (which can happen, kind of like when a soccer player scores on his own goal, for example) He. Still. Wins.
Time to change the rules. If you can't move. you LOSE. Period. Why is this planet the only one in the galaxy where a stalemate is considered a draw? A draw is when neither person can make any headway in a game. Anyone who says that a person who can't make a move should be awarded with a draw simply dosen't understand what a DRAW means. A person who can't make a move, LOSES the game! Case in Point. After 88 moves, I get a new Qween and a Rook. The opponent has no more pawns. The opponent can't move. I could still make moves. He is awarded a draw and points. I lose points. HOW IS THAT FAIR? Please o great one, enlighten me.....Is there anyone out there who agrees with me? I had a game where the opponent could not make a move. It was not a stalemate. Time ran out and I was awarded a win. HOW IS A STALEMATE ANY DIFFERENT? IF YOU CAN"T MOVE, YOU LOSE. So a checkmate IS NOT the only way to win. I've been there. I would expect that if I could not make a move in a game that depends on your next move, I would lose the game. Easy outs have no place in a respectable game. Live long and prosper.
He's right. In other galaxies the game is played correctly.
is there a reason you did not play Qa8# on move 33?
On Saturn, a Stalemate is classed as a win, not a draw.
Time to count your blessings?
Most likely because I didn't have a qween since move 21.
The fumes on that gas giant have affected the rulemakers....I would certainly like to be awarded a win in a game where I can't make a move that depends on players each MAKING a move. I have simple values. Either make a move or lose. I've lost games. I don't really like it much, but if someone outplays you, they win. Move on and try to improve. I've learned that even though you need to make a few more moves to keep your opponent from being stalemated, make the moves. Even though it's rediculous.(pretty sure I don't know how to spell rediculous, just sound it out).
Yes, but part of the challenge of the game is to avoid giving a Stalemate. Let's call it one of the quirkier rules of the games. Just like pawn promotions is a quirkier rule of the game. One could call it 'ridiculous' to have a game that allows say 6 Queens on a board, that there is nothing to stop that. The game is obviously lost for the opponent (unless can strike a Stalemate) but the player with 6 Queens can continue to acquire more Queens if he/she likes, nothing to stop that.
.... IF YOU CAN"T MOVE, YOU LOSE. ...
If you can't checkmate, you can't win. Maybe if you look at it this way: the king who achieves stalemate has found a safe haven where he cannot be molested. Therefore, the opponent cannot win. If nobody can win, it's a draw. Kind of like in a football game, there are no points for stacking up yardage. No matter how many yards you have, if you don't have more points, you don't win. Don't like the stalemate draw? Don't let 'im get one. Can't stop him? That's why it's a draw.
There are other ways to win than checkmate. Most are because of not moving. Say you are playing a 24 hour per move game. Your opponent does not move in 24 hours. You win. Say you are playing a 20 minute game. Your moves have used 12 minutes. Your opponent uses 20:01 minutes. You win. A safe haven? Chess is non-violent war. Say you are in a war. In a foxhole. (a 'safe haven', not in check). A move in any direction would be fatal. (you can't move into check). You lose. Think staying there is 'safe'? You will starve. You lose. Do you really think your enemy is going to quit persuing you just because you can't move? (3 guesses. the first 2 don't count). I vote for moving until you can't move. "Your opponent can not make a move, it's your move again." Who says the game ends when only one side can not move? It is not fair to be told you must quit playing when you can still make a move. The game would end if both sides could not make a move. that would be fair. The rules will change eventually. In the future, people will say," A stalemate? What's that?". When they find out how the rules used to be, they will laugh and laugh and laugh....Mate is Mate. Stale or Fresh. Get Mated, You Lose. My humble opinion. The rules have changed before. The Qween used to be a 'weak' piece. The rules changed and now she is powerful. Remember that?
@bopowo01: The stalmate rule as is makes most sense to me, but nobody can predict the future. Of course the rules may change. But the stalemate rule is as it is because most people understand that only a real win is worthy of being called a win. If it's a professional game, the spectators are paying to see a mate, not somebody get backed into a corner. You don't get a pat on the back for almost. Once a player is close to winning, the onus is on him to actually do it.
I think it's a great rule when in my favour and a stupid rule when used against me.
I curse the crazy who thought of it when that happens. lol.