14089 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I've got a good reason for asking.
Oh, I'd guess since the very day the rule was made.
Politely debating? Well, probably ever since the rules began to evolve... so from the beginning of chess time.
Arguing? Even since chess.com forum began.
I asked cause I. A. Horowitz predicted it wiould soon be abolished in his book called Chess for Beginners, copywrited 1950.
so what would be the outcome of perpetual check if not stalemate?
He meant when the king can't move.
so stalemate would not be eliminated then...just one form of it
It's stale, mate!
A least a couple hundred years.
ChefBruce: Not every draw is stalemate.
"At first sight it may seem unfair to you that a player with such a huge lead should be "cheated" out of victory. But the stalemate is historically grounded in the idea of penalizing a player who is clumsy in making his big advantage tell. The stalemate rule imparts a chivalrous note to the game by making it possible for a hopelessly outnumbered player to snatch a last minute draw if his opponent is careless. In recent years, the stalemate rule has been denounced as an anachronism, and the chances are that in the not too distant future it will be abolished." So no, he didn't qualify it precisely.
So who's going to abolish it, the chess Supreme Court?
FIDE. Personally, I don't think they should cause it depends on you opponent being careless.
The point of it is that abolishing stalemate would require a king not under attack to commit suicide. In the metaphor for life that this is that should never happen.If you consider a king under siege, the stalemate is equivalent to having the castle surrounded with overwhelming force and forgetting to keep track of the whereabouts of the king. You allow him to slip out of the noose in the confusion. He plays you for a fool in the endgame and lives to fight another day.
The stalemate should be left alone. The interesting thing is that to get a stalemate the would be loser has to show utter contempt or lack of respect for his opponent's ability or he would have resigned based on position and numbers. It is thus the only allowable trash-talking in the game.
A tremendous number of fascinating endgames would simply disappear if the stalemate rule was abolished. We would be left with a simpler and duller game.
I'm obviously no expert, but it does indeed seem like it would change the game a lot.
When you say abolish do you mean making it illegal to stalemate your opponent?
No. Some people on here want to make stalemate a win just like checkmate.
by Drawgood 12 minutes ago
Mate in 1
by chessmindoftheboard 13 minutes ago
by gluestix 14 minutes ago
Kasparov is slaughtering Nakamura and So.
by ChessOath 15 minutes ago
What are the best books to improve from 1900 to 2200 in less than a year
by ylblai2 16 minutes ago
Robert_New_Alekhine vs. solskytz Match
by MarcoBR444 18 minutes ago
New Chess Movie: PAWN PUSHER 5: The Dark Side of Chess
by MarcoBR444 23 minutes ago
by chessmindoftheboard 28 minutes ago
5/5/16 - Maya!!
by Robert_New_Alekhine 32 minutes ago
best lines in kings pawn openings?
by jengaias 33 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!