is the same person to monster-with -no-name and Matt Bishop is not his real name because he said so.
How long do you suppose chess players have been arguing about abolishing
Sort:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
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.
I don't know if it would make it more just though. It's kind of like trapping an opponent, but he's completely defended. Sort of like dominating a knight on the edge of the board (he has no square to go to) ... but he's still there until you attack and capture him.
I guess you mean fair as in one side (sometimes) has a lot more pieces. But I think you could argue this is fair too, because many times throughout the game, it's the positioning of pieces that gives your side a position of power, not the number. That's what makes sound sacrifices so creative and pleasing.
But feelings of justice aside, I wouldn't enjoy how it affects endgames. What's the benefit to the average player in accepting this kind of rule change?
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Reb he blocked me too, maybe he has some problem with titled players LOL.
Nothing to do with your title. (I wouldnt exactly be bragging about an NM) You were also posting waffles last year, you all lost the arguement and highjacked the thread with penguin and waffle pictures. For evidence see that thread.
Yes, Monster posted that article and stated he wrote it in his thread:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stalemate-needs-to-be-abolished?page=6
Post #119
So really stalemate isn't a win... it is a loss of move. So king and pawn vs king would be a win, just not for rook pawns. And king plus bishop would still be drawn. In per words, not all stalemates are equal. Still ridiculous, but it would help if the stalematers made an internally logical argument.
In which thread did I post waffle pictures ? I dont recall doing such a thing really.
Reb wrote:
In which thread did I post waffle pictures ? I dont recall doing such a thing really.
somewhere in here among the 41 pages of craps
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stalemate-rule-needs-to-be-abolished
It isn't there. I checked. There was a cool picture of The Fonz, but Reb posted nary a picture of a waffle or a penguin that I could find.
Page 13, 14 and 15 he posts a few. But doesn't derail the topic. And non of them are waffles or penguins :p
@kco I still have 666 unread comments in that thread. I think it inspired my policy of not opening a tracked thread with more than 100 new comments.
Wait, we are supposed to be arguing about stalemate, not penguins. 
well you should go back to page 14 of that thread and have a good laugh by the famous post by Reb.
Estragon wrote:
more likely to mate than he is.
Oh you.
lets abolish stale arguments!
Abolish resignation!
Abolish abolition!
WITH FRANK124C =THERE IS NOTHING GAINED
A recent article on Chessbase:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8302