How long do you suppose chess players have been arguing about abolishing - Chess Forums - Page 5

Kens_Mom

Jul 11, 2012

0

#81

Here_Is_Plenty wrote:

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?

HIP is right. Regardless of whether abolishing stalemate would somehow improve the game of chess, it is hardly necessary since the current system in place is completely functional. I am psure that what little benefit the change would bring about (if any) cannot possibly come close to compensating for the amount of confusion and discontentment that would follow.

Monster_with_no_Name

Jul 11, 2012

0

#82

Here_Is_Plenty wrote:

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?

Buddy, I like concrete examples.
Soccer is a much more popular game than chess.
Recently they changed the off side rule, where passive players are not offside. Soon they will bring cameras into the game. Its evolving.

Your point was?

Monster_with_no_Name

Jul 11, 2012

0

#83

uri65 wrote:

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?

Believe it or not
K +p vs K also occur in amatuer games. Just to cite the 1 example.

A lot of GM short draws are abondoned early (because of the far reaching inplications of the stalemate rule) eg K+p v K!
They agree to the draw, but YOU dont see WHY.

You should probably be quarantined from this thread for 1 week intensive critical thinking course.

Here_Is_Plenty

Jul 11, 2012

0

#84

And the day they introduce cameras on the line to friendly games between 5 a side amateur teams in public parks in Glasgow's housing schemes is the day the comparison becomes relevant. Football is a pay per view event that has countless followers and big money sponsorship. The rules have not been around anywhere near as long as chess and they involve more concrete requirements for improvement. Chess is a casual game played everywhere from nursing homes to playgrounds to prisons to bedrooms, on the internet and in small smoky clubs. The changes to footballs offside rule are corrections to another badly-thought-out rule that was introduced as an add-on. Chess is mathematical in nature, unlike football, with easy to define parameters for establishing what is "wrong" in it. Do people enjoy it as it is? Yes. Is there a general unhappiness with the rules as they are? No. As for getting me to provide examples comparable to chess, I wont - enough sporting commentators compare chess with everything from football to boxing even to weight lifting, but comparisons are not really valid. Chess is chess and doesnt even compare with other games played on boards properly, let alone sports.

Kens_Mom

Jul 11, 2012

0

#85

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

Buddy, I like concrete examples.
Soccer is a much more popular game than chess.
Recently they changed the off side rule, where passive players are not offside. Soon they will bring cameras into the game. Its evolving.

Your point was?

That seems like a fairly insignificant change to the rules that doesn't necessarily interfer with the core mechanics of the game of soccer. It would be similar to changing the 3 fold repetition to the 4 fold repitition, or allowing players to possess a cellphone in the playing venue in certain circumstances. Nothing as big as getting rid of stalemate.

"It's evolving" is no reason to embrace such a huge change.

uri65

Jul 11, 2012

0

#86

[COMMENT DELETED]

Here_Is_Plenty

Jul 11, 2012

0

#87

Chris, arent you due another picture change? (Said the guy who has worn a horse's head out of laziness since opening account...)

1shtar

Jul 11, 2012

0

#88

lol..

uri65

Jul 11, 2012

0

#89

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

uri65 wrote:

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?

Believe it or not
K +p vs K also occur in amatuer games. Just to cite the 1 example.

A lot of GM short draws are abondoned early (because of the far reaching inplications of the stalemate rule) eg K+p v K!
They agree to the draw, but YOU dont see WHY.

You should probably be quarantined from this thread for 1 week intensive critical thinking course.

Do I understand you correctly - are you saying that there are too many draws at amateur level? In you opinion 10-20% percent of draws is such a serious problem that it calls for rule change?

As for GM level - I am quite happy with Sofia rules - recent Tal Memorial 2012 had 53.3% of draws and most of them were hard-fought and enjoyable for chess audience.

NM ozzie_c_cobblepot

Jul 11, 2012

0

#90

It would re-write endgame theory - sorry if this was already mentioned 100 times - K+P v K would be a win now, even for rook pawns. You wouldn't have to learn knight/bishop checkmate (not that anybody ever did). Would K+B v K now be a win?

IMO the debate is ridiculous. The one thing which would be interesting is having a thematic tournament where for example a stalemate was .75 points instead of .5, just to mess with the super GMs.

DrFrank124c

Jul 11, 2012

0

#91

Stalemate adds to the game in that the side with the most material has to still win. Chess is analogous to life, in life a rich man has so much money that he goes out and buys drugs and alcohol and destroys his own life while a poor man through hard work builds a life of pride and fulfillment. Who is better off the rich man or the poor man?

Monster_with_no_Name

Jul 11, 2012

0

#92

ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

It would re-write endgame theory - sorry if this was already mentioned 100 times - K+P v K would be a win now, even for rook pawns. You wouldn't have to learn knight/bishop checkmate (not that anybody ever did). Would K+B v K now be a win?

IMO the debate is ridiculous. The one thing which would be interesting is having a thematic tournament where for example a stalemate was .75 points instead of .5, just to mess with the super GMs.

You should have put the "H" in IMO... with such a feeble point.
The rule change would make endgames much more just.
The fact that you would have to do some revision of endgames is irrelevant to whether the rule is better or not.
You are typical of the person arguing for stalemate, it would make my life harder, therefore its ridiculous. Great critical thinking.

Monster_with_no_Name

Jul 11, 2012

0

#93

frank124c wrote:

Stalemate adds to the game in that the side with the most material has to still win. Chess is analogous to life, in life a rich man has so much money that he goes out and buys drugs and alcohol and destroys his own life while a poor man through hard work builds a life of pride and fulfillment. Who is better off the rich man or the poor man?

'Chess is analogous to life'
So in a war, where we destroy the opponents army to the point he is paralyzed and the king/president is about to be captured and tortured to reveal where he hides his gold.... that would be justly called a drawn outcome.

nameno1had

Jul 11, 2012

0

#94

I guess they need something to do between games...

NM TheOldReb

Jul 11, 2012

0

#95

Why dont the people who dont like the rules of chess just play something else ? In checkers if you stalemate your opponent you win ! Try checkers !?

kco

Jul 11, 2012

0

#96

Reb wrote:

Why dont the people who dont like the rules of chess just play something else ? In checkers if you stalemate your opponent you win ! Try checkers !?

the problem is that the monster doesn't want to, he really want to change the stalemate rule for his own satifaction, oh by the way, Hi Reb good to you

Monster_with_no_Name

Jul 11, 2012

0

#97

Reb wrote:

Why dont the people who dont like the rules of chess just play something else ? In checkers if you stalemate your opponent you win ! Try checkers !?

The chess you are playing and arguing for now is a variant.
The original was stalemate is a win. Why was it changed?

When we change it back, you can go play checkers.

kco

Jul 11, 2012

0

#98

you are acting like a parrot here, stop repeating yourself.

Conflagration_Planet

Jul 11, 2012

0

#99

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

Reb wrote:

Why dont the people who dont like the rules of chess just play something else ? In checkers if you stalemate your opponent you win ! Try checkers !?

The chess you are playing and arguing for now is a variant.
The original was stalemate is a win. Why was it changed?

When we change it back, you can go play checkers.

Perhaps it was changed to improve it. If it was so great before, why did they change to begin with?

Eris_Discordia

Jul 11, 2012

0

#100

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

Reb wrote:

Why dont the people who dont like the rules of chess just play something else ? In checkers if you stalemate your opponent you win ! Try checkers !?

The chess you are playing and arguing for now is a variant.
The original was stalemate is a win. Why was it changed?

When we change it back, you can go play checkers.

In the early forms of chess the queen moved like a king, you want to go back to that?