i agree
How long do you suppose chess players have been arguing about abolishing
Sort:
but i tink its not bad thing!!
Which comes to say that stalemate is the ultimate zugzwang.
blake78613 wrote:
uri65 wrote:
I guess nobody really cares.
This thread and some parallel threads show that a lot of people care, and care very passionately.
From the Wikipedia:
The British master T. H. Tylor argued in a 1940 article in the British Chess Magazine that the present rule, treating stalemate as a draw, "is without historical foundation and irrational, and primarily responsible for a vast percentage of draws, and hence should be abolished" (Reinfeld 1959:242–44). Years later, Fred Reinfeld wrote, "When Tylor wrote his attack on the stalemate rule, he released about his unhappy head a swarm of peevish maledictions that are still buzzing."
By "nobody really cares" I was refering to Monster_with_no_Name opinion that existing rules are stupid - that's something he starts saying when he runs out of logical arguments. A year ago he started similar thread with same ridiculous claims (chess is war, rules are contradicting each other and all that nonsense). This and parallel thread rather show that majority of players do care about keeping the rules as they are.
As for reducing number of draws. Let's see... On amateur level this problem doesn't exist. I am a B class player and I hardly draw 20% of my games. On top level not the draws themselves are a problem, but rather short boring draws (what we call a "GM draw"). If I imagine a typical game ended in a stalemete it can be hardly boring. Examples we see from top GMs are interesting games well over 50 moves long. Otherwise Sofia rules and scoring system like 3(win)-1(draw)-0 (loss) are a good measure against short draws.
We all play chess for fun including the elite who also plays for money. For me it's obvious that if you ask players of any level vast majority will tell you that game with stalemate=win will be less fun to play.
Jul 11, 2012
0
#66
"The British master T. H. Tylor argued in a 1940 article in the British Chess Magazine that the present rule, treating stalemate as a draw, "is without historical foundation and irrational, and primarily responsible for a vast percentage of draws, and hence should be abolished"
T.H. Tylor is totally inaccurate. Historically, Stalemate has been considered either a draw or a win for the stalemated side. History is completley against Stalemate treated as Checkmate. That a majority (a "vast percentage" seems to infer a majority, if not most) of draws can be attributed to Stalemate seems an exaggeration. Relatively few games end in Stalemate. The threat of Stalemate always looms and plays into tactical reasoning, but so does 3 fold rep, perpetual and insufficient material, so the highlighting of that supposition, especially with nothing to back it up, is more than a bit obfuscatory on Tylors part. So, it seems he invented history and statistics to make a preconceived conclusion.
it should stay if your careless then its your fault you missed usually a simple win and draw occurred instead.
uri65 wrote:
By "nobody really cares" I was refering to Monster_with_no_Name opinion that existing rules are stupid - that's something he starts saying when he runs out of logical arguments. A year ago he started similar thread with same ridiculous claims (chess is war, rules are contradicting each other and all that nonsense). This and parallel thread rather show that majority of players do care about keeping the rules as they are.
I'd like to add to this by saying that most of the posters in the other thread really do not care to change Monster's opinion regarding stalemate, since everyone's entitled to their own opinion and all. However, I think some are a bit curious to know why he feels the need to change the rules when (as others have pointed out in both threads) there are two much better alternatives to solving his discontentment with chess: picking up a new game or starting your own variation. If he truly wants to get rid of the stalemate rule, doing the latter would be the right way of showing the merits of abolishing stalemate to the "nay-sayers" that think it would ruin chess.
The only thing Monster's been able to accomplish in the last few pages of the other thread is to brew internet hostility, and posters are attracted to that like moths to a lamppost (myself included). That would be the main reason that there's so much buzz in the other thread, pun intended.
batgirl wrote:
"The British master T. H. Tylor argued in a 1940 article in the British Chess Magazine that the present rule, treating stalemate as a draw, "is without historical foundation and irrational, and primarily responsible for a vast percentage of draws, and hence should be abolished"
T.H. Tylor is totally inaccurate. Historically, Stalemate has been considered either a draw of a win for the stalemated side. History is completley against Stalemate treated as Checkmate. That a majority (a "vast percentage" seems to infer a majority, if not most) of draws can be attributed to Stalemate seems an exaggeration. Relatively few games end in Stalemate. The threat of Stalemate always looms and plays into tactical reasoning, but so does 3 fold rep, perpetual and insufficient material, so the highlighting of that supposition, especially with nothing to back it up, is more than a bit obfuscatory on Tylors part. So, it seems he invented history and statistics to make a preconceived conclusion.
The Stalemate rule is not independent of the other reasons for draw. Stalemate being a draw, and a draw for insufficient material are very related. Three fold repetition, can be related to stalemate, for instance the only way to avoid three fold repetition is by stalemating your opponent, which is often the case where the superior side cannot make progress. Perpetual Checks often have stalemate possibilities. As for the history, it depends on how far back you go. In medieval chess, a modern checkmate was very rare (the pieces were much less powerful) and by necessity stalemate was considered a win along with bare mate. It would be interesting to see Taylor's original article to see what his historical arguments were and if he could back up his statistics. I would guess in the early days of the modern game (the chess of mad Queen) that stalemate was considered a mate. We know in Spain (once a power house in chess in the days of Ruy Lopez and Lucena) stalemate was an inferior mate (basically a .75 win if the game was played for stakes, the winner won 1/2 the bet). Most opponents of the changing the stalemate rule seem to take for granted that there would be fewer draws, and in fact argue that it would make some endgames too trivial.
It would be retarded to remove the stalemate rule and you know it's true.
Do you really believe Nimzovich was retarded?
Jul 11, 2012
0
#72
The assertion by Tylor made wasn't that Stalemate plays a part in other draws but is "Primarily Responsible for a Vast Percentage of Draws," which is something else altogether and a rather bloated comment that needs support. I'd like to see his statistics too.
Anything in history before the advent of the Mad Queen is another game altogether. While chess even with the Mad Queen has differed greatly, in almost every instance, it is at least clearly recognizable as in the same vein of the game we play today. Lucena's games look like our games; Vicent's games look like our games; Greco's games look like our games; Ruy Lopez' games look like our games. Going back to the start of the 17th century, Stalemates were considered either a draw or a win by the stalemated side. Before that time, the rules and movements were too different to matter as a historical precedent.
This isn't to say his conclusion is right or wrong, but the reasoning as given in the short quote is off-base.
Jul 11, 2012
0
#73
For historical perspective, in Byzantine Chess, stalemate is a victory for the stalemating player, but it was considered an inferior win. If playing for a stake, the winner received only half the stake.
Based on that, I would say that debates over what to do about stalemate go back to at least 1325, which is the date of the manuscript describing Byzantine Chess.
(ETA: And I see that Blake chimed in with the fact that a similar situation persisted at least into 16th century Spain.)
Jul 11, 2012
0
#74
One paramount rule in chess is that you can't move into check. If you are in check and can't move, because you'd be checked: you're checkmated. If you are not in check and can't move, your opponent is a goofball--you've stalemated. HA HA HA! you say and the game is drawn, because you can't move your own king into peril.
chrisr2212 wrote:
but otb, how many beginners games have had stalemate, checkmate, illegal positions not noticed on the board during play, but the game still went on ??
Hang on I'll get my calculator...oh sod it, I'll just +1 instead.
uri65 wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
uri65 wrote:
I guess nobody really cares.
This thread and some parallel threads show that a lot of people care, and care very passionately.
From the Wikipedia:
The British master T. H. Tylor argued in a 1940 article in the British Chess Magazine that the present rule, treating stalemate as a draw, "is without historical foundation and irrational, and primarily responsible for a vast percentage of draws, and hence should be abolished" (Reinfeld 1959:242–44). Years later, Fred Reinfeld wrote, "When Tylor wrote his attack on the stalemate rule, he released about his unhappy head a swarm of peevish maledictions that are still buzzing."
By "nobody really cares" I was refering to Monster_with_no_Name opinion that existing rules are stupid - that's something he starts saying when he runs out of logical arguments. A year ago he started similar thread with same ridiculous claims (chess is war, rules are contradicting each other and all that nonsense). This and parallel thread rather show that majority of players do care about keeping the rules as they are.
As for reducing number of draws. Let's see... On amateur level this problem doesn't exist. I am a B class player and I hardly draw 20% of my games. On top level not the draws themselves are a problem, but rather short boring draws (what we call a "GM draw"). If I imagine a typical game ended in a stalemete it can be hardly boring. Examples we see from top GMs are interesting games well over 50 moves long. Otherwise Sofia rules and scoring system like 3(win)-1(draw)-0 (loss) are a good measure against short draws.
We all play chess for fun including the elite who also plays for money. For me it's obvious that if you ask players of any level vast majority will tell you that game with stalemate=win will be less fun to play.
Uri buddy, you have no idea what youre talking about... this rule change will have huge implications to draw vs win. Just to give you 1 eg out of 100,000s.
K v K + p when the lone king can get in front of the pawn this is a draw in many situations. with the new rules, not so.
Rasparovov wrote:
It would be retarded to remove the stalemate rule and you know it's true.
This is unfortunately the calibre of the person arguing for the stalemate rule.
Estragon wrote:
Rules have always been a fair topic of discussion. That's how the game was refined.
However, nearly all the rules changes in the last century have been to accommodate the game to the complications of time limits and competition, which were only introduced in the mid-19th Century. Virtually none of the rules of moving pieces on the board have changed in any substantial way in well over a century.
The standardization of rules from local variants to a single worldwide system has been one of the achievements of chess, and ensuring that was one of the main reasons for FIDE in the first place (when it was first formed, the idea of it controlling or administering the World Championship wasn't taken very seriously, as that had always been a matter between the Champion and potential challengers).
In order to change such fundamental rules of the game, it would first be necessary to build a consensus for the change. Just a few whining, snivelling voices from very weak players isn't going to inspire anyone.
No, no.
I would say our biggest problem in changing the rules is the ignorance of all the masses. Check my last 2 posts above, for very clear eg's.
Okay. Let us assume for a moment that we have in fact convinced FIDE that abolishing stalemate is a good idea. That such a change would be momentous enough to get a side column in a few newspapers. That we have convinced beginners chess publishers and the writers of rules for toyshop chess sets to amend their enclosures with the rules of chess on them. Do you really think that chessplayers over the world would look at such a change seriously and not go "No way, thats not happening in my games..." The simple inertia of changing the minds of millions of chessplayers worldwide is a good enough reason not to change the rules in any way. The rules are not broken, why attempt to "fix" them?
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
uri65 wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
uri65 wrote:
I guess nobody really cares.
This thread and some parallel threads show that a lot of people care, and care very passionately.
From the Wikipedia:
The British master T. H. Tylor argued in a 1940 article in the British Chess Magazine that the present rule, treating stalemate as a draw, "is without historical foundation and irrational, and primarily responsible for a vast percentage of draws, and hence should be abolished" (Reinfeld 1959:242–44). Years later, Fred Reinfeld wrote, "When Tylor wrote his attack on the stalemate rule, he released about his unhappy head a swarm of peevish maledictions that are still buzzing."
By "nobody really cares" I was refering to Monster_with_no_Name opinion that existing rules are stupid - that's something he starts saying when he runs out of logical arguments. A year ago he started similar thread with same ridiculous claims (chess is war, rules are contradicting each other and all that nonsense). This and parallel thread rather show that majority of players do care about keeping the rules as they are.
As for reducing number of draws. Let's see... On amateur level this problem doesn't exist. I am a B class player and I hardly draw 20% of my games. On top level not the draws themselves are a problem, but rather short boring draws (what we call a "GM draw"). If I imagine a typical game ended in a stalemete it can be hardly boring. Examples we see from top GMs are interesting games well over 50 moves long. Otherwise Sofia rules and scoring system like 3(win)-1(draw)-0 (loss) are a good measure against short draws.
We all play chess for fun including the elite who also plays for money. For me it's obvious that if you ask players of any level vast majority will tell you that game with stalemate=win will be less fun to play.
Uri buddy, you have no idea what youre talking about... this rule change will have huge implications to draw vs win. Just to give you 1 eg out of 100,000s.
K v K + p when the lone king can get in front of the pawn this is a draw in many situations. with the new rules, not so.
I don't see how your answer relates to anything in my message. Could you please highlight one or few sentences in my text that you disagree with?
I guess nobody really cares.
This thread and some parallel threads show that a lot of people care, and care very passionately.
From the Wikipedia:
The British master T. H. Tylor argued in a 1940 article in the British Chess Magazine that the present rule, treating stalemate as a draw, "is without historical foundation and irrational, and primarily responsible for a vast percentage of draws, and hence should be abolished" (Reinfeld 1959:242–44). Years later, Fred Reinfeld wrote, "When Tylor wrote his attack on the stalemate rule, he released about his unhappy head a swarm of peevish maledictions that are still buzzing."