How long do you suppose chess players have been arguing about abolishing

Conflagration_Planet

Stalemate?

Conflagration_Planet

I've got a good reason for asking.

MrEdCollins

Oh, I'd guess since the very day the rule was made.

waffllemaster

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.

Tongue out

Conflagration_Planet

I asked cause I. A. Horowitz predicted it wiould soon be abolished in his book called Chess for Beginners, copywrited 1950.

ChefBruce

so what would be the outcome of perpetual check if not stalemate?

Conflagration_Planet
ChefBruce wrote:

so what would be the outcome of perpetual check if not stalemate?

He meant when the king can't move.

ChefBruce

so stalemate would not be eliminated then...just one form of it

DrSpudnik

It's stale, mate!

TheGrobe

A least a couple hundred years.

TheGrobe

ChefBruce: Not every draw is stalemate.

Conflagration_Planet

"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.

DrSpudnik

So who's going to abolish it, the chess Supreme Court?

kco
DrSpudnik wrote:

So who's going to abolish it, the chess Supreme Court?

them ?

Conflagration_Planet
DrSpudnik wrote:

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.

whozurdaddy

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.       

Conflagration_Planet

Makes sense.

Conflagration_Planet
paulgottlieb wrote:

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.

Eris_Discordia

When you say abolish do you mean making it illegal to stalemate your opponent?

Conflagration_Planet
Eris_Discordia wrote:

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.