Until the early 19th Century, Stalemate was a win for the party stalemated. Fact.
So who would win in a situation of a double stalemate? Would that game be scored 1-1?
I'm not sure how a 'double stalemate' is possible, any more than a double checkmate, but it would be the guy who was to move, but couldn't, who would win.
I'm not disputing draw due to insufficient material, I'm calling it stupid to say it's a stalemate when one party is inescapably trapped and can't move without going into check. I fail to see how that is much different from a check-mate scenario.
Because they are not in check???
Until the early 19th Century, Stalemate was a win for the party stalemated. Fact.
So who would win in a situation of a double stalemate? Would that game be scored 1-1?
I'm not sure how a 'double stalemate' is possible, any more than a double checkmate, but it would be the guy who was to move, but couldn't, who would win.
That would mean that running out of time, even against a lone king, would be a loss because that lone king could win with a stalemate.
Thread owner just whine and being crybaby about stalemate when he just missed mate in 1 and lose the chance to win a free game
Until the early 19th Century, Stalemate was a win for the party stalemated. Fact.
So who would win in a situation of a double stalemate? Would that game be scored 1-1?
I'm not sure how a 'double stalemate' is possible, any more than a double checkmate, but it would be the guy who was to move, but couldn't, who would win.
A double stalemate is when both sides are in stablemate, at the same time. A double checkmate is impossible though. So in this game black missed the checkmate square, f2 with his queen and instead ended up on g2, checking the white king. White captured the queen with his knight. And without thinking black, captured the knight.
If I understand you correctly you are saying when white moves to g1 this used to be a win for black. But white put himself in stalemate also.
A double stalemate is when both sides are in stablemate, at the same time. A double checkmate is impossible though. So in this game black missed the checkmate square, f2 with his queen and instead ended up on g2, checking the white king. White captured the queen with his knight. And without thinking black, captured the knight.
If I understand you correctly you are saying when white moves to g1 this used to be a win for black. But white put himself in stalemate also.
Right, fxg2 then Kg1 and it is a draw because black is stalemated. (whether it's "double" or not is irrelevant).
Instead, if black played Kh2, it is a winning position for black. For example, 1...Kh2 2.Nxh4 g2+ 3.Nxg2 fxg2 4.Ke2 g1=Q
A double stalemate is when both sides are in stablemate, at the same time. A double checkmate is impossible though. So in this game black missed the checkmate square, f2 with his queen and instead ended up on g2, checking the white king. White captured the queen with his knight. And without thinking black, captured the knight.
If I understand you correctly you are saying when white moves to g1 this used to be a win for black. But white put himself in stalemate also.
Right, fxg2 then Kg1 and it is a draw because black is stalemated. (whether it's "double" or not is irrelevant).
Instead, if black played Kh2, it is a winning position for black. For example, 1...Kh2 2.Nxh4 g2+ 3.Nxg2 fxg2 4.Ke2 g1=Q
That's not the point, it's just that if the final position came up, what would happen if stalemate doesn't exist?
What`s stupid is the person who started this thread!
A double stalemate is when both sides are in stablemate, at the same time. A double checkmate is impossible though. So in this game black missed the checkmate square, f2 with his queen and instead ended up on g2, checking the white king. White captured the queen with his knight. And without thinking black, captured the knight.
If I understand you correctly you are saying when white moves to g1 this used to be a win for black. But white put himself in stalemate also.
Right, fxg2 then Kg1 and it is a draw because black is stalemated. (whether it's "double" or not is irrelevant).
Instead, if black played Kh2, it is a winning position for black. For example, 1...Kh2 2.Nxh4 g2+ 3.Nxg2 fxg2 4.Ke2 g1=Q
That's not the point, it's just that if the final position came up, what would happen if stalemate doesn't exist?
Exactly. Without the stalemate rule, how would this end position be awarded.
Sorry dashin, but if one player can't move without going into check that is the definition of stalemate! It has always been that way and it will always be that way!
No, that's the definition of defeat, not stalemate.
No, that's the definition of defeat, not stalemate.
No, dragon pfps are the definition of defeat.
Sorry dashin but just because you and Nigel Short don't like the stalemate rule is not going to change anything. I would recommend that you just get used to it.
Practice makes perfect. : )
No, that's the definition of defeat, not stalemate.
A member here for thirteen odd years, and still have not found time to read the rules?
What's really stupid is thinking you should get the win when you were stupid enough to let your opponent put you in a position where you can't.
After a certain number of pieces remain, a new chess game should start, to decide priority. Whoever is at an advantage on the other, newer game (it could be a time advantage, a placement advantage, or a time advantage) would have an advantage over their opponent in the first chess board.
#323: The motivation for changing stalemate doesn't need to be low rated players making errors. It could simply be that we want to see more definitive outcomes and fewer draws in higher rated games.
If your goal is to eliminate draws then the US Chess forum had a couple of topics from a decade back for how to do that:
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=15972
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=16369
That also takes care of the issues involving the 50-move rule, repetition of position, insufficient mating material (lone K vs lone K is no longer a draw), etc.
A simple rule saying that inflicting stalemate is a win would mean that a lone king IS sufficient mating material as long as the opponent has an a or h pawn (final position could be that everything else is captured and the pawn is one square from promoting with that player's king immediately in front of it while the opposing king is on the same row but two files away). Eliminating stalemate can result in the lone king winning on time. (and it would be even easier if the rule was changed to say that inflicting stalemate was a loss).