Barron_Von_Tito wrote:
Stalemate sucks
That depends on which side of the board you are on.
MOST STUPID RULE : STALEMATE
Sort:
Seems that I chase someone around the board for 3 or 4 moves and its stalemate.....but someone chases me around for 10 moves and no stalemate. Doesnt seem to be consistant!
HendersonGambit wrote:
Seems that I chase someone around the board for 3 or 4 moves and its stalemate.....but someone chases me around for 10 moves and no stalemate. Doesnt seem to be consistant!
You should just look up what stalemate is. Your comment suggests that you don't know.
Nov 17, 2022
0
#365
magipi wrote:
HendersonGambit wrote:
Seems that I chase someone around the board for 3 or 4 moves and its stalemate.....but someone chases me around for 10 moves and no stalemate. Doesnt seem to be consistant!
You should just look up what stalemate is. Your comment suggests that you don't know.
ROFLMAO! It amazes me how many people play chess and don't even know the rules, like the author of post 371.
Stalemate is not about number of moves. Number of moves has NOTHING to do with stalemate.
Stalemate is where the player that is to move has no legal move, but he or she is also not in check!
Examples - in all cases, it is White to move.
Nov 17, 2022
0
#366
If you complain about the existence of the Stalemate rule, you fall into one of the following categories:
1.) Beginner
2.) Idiot
3.) Beginner and Idiot
I just feed my opponents to the duck army when I stalemate them
EBowie wrote:
If you complain about the existence of the Stalemate rule, you fall into one of the following categories:
...
4) Troll
HendersonGambit wrote:
Seems that I chase someone around the board for 3 or 4 moves and its stalemate.....but someone chases me around for 10 moves and no stalemate. Doesnt seem to be consistant!
That's to do with skill, not the rule.
Feb 1, 2023
0
#370
yokayomi wrote:
The rule is rii2arded. Saying that it’s a nice technical thing in the game is just pseudo-intellectuals crapping out of their mouths. If you are about to lose then just choose the way you want to lose. It doesn’t make the game fun, it makes it boring. The same thing if player accidentally moves his king into harms way mid game. No safety nets, if he dies he f\|q¡n d¡es. Plain and simple. Plus that kills the definition of the word “stalemate” which means “a situation in which further action or progress by opposing or competing parties seems impossible.” Just because you’re going to lose the game does not mean you can’t move. (Didn’t know the chess community was so soft)
Hmmm, brand-new account, zero games, astoundingly low puzzles rating, yeah I'm gonna have to go with what the titled players are saying and not this
yokayomi wrote:
If you are about to lose then just choose the way you want to lose.
If your opponent stalemated you, he failed to win this game, which means you were not about to lose, you simply had an inferior position.
I don’t find stalemate all that bad but i think whoever has more points wins if same points then tie
big07305 wrote:
I don’t find stalemate all that bad but i think whoever has more points wins if same points then tie
But there are no points in the rules of chess.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS IS 2023 AND VERY STUPID AND UNFAIR!!!!
Just about the win as the oponent started to run with his King....and STALEMATE..and the worse..instead to give a point to each, the game takes one out from me....PATHETIC!!!!!,,,it's like..pusinhing the startagey that you done...and rewarding the loser, looks like a communist rule this shi**.
Hey Chessonlie, please remove this background which messes with the reading....!
No
Yes, yes, it is super hard to checkmate with 2 queens, no wonder that our "GodsTemplar" friend failed miserably.
Mar 2, 2023
0
#378
lfPatriotGames wrote:
StevetheRabbit wrote:
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?
Not possible, it'd only be the player who's move it is that is stalemated (If it's not your move, what does it matter whether you can move)
Ik right
njzuraw13 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
StevetheRabbit wrote:
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?
Not possible, it'd only be the player who's move it is that is stalemated (If it's not your move, what does it matter whether you can move)
I understand what you are saying. The same principle applies in checkmate. Once it happens the game is over, regardless of the position the other player is in. I was just asking about the scoring for a stalemate prior to the 19th century. If it was a win for the party that was stalemated then it could be argued the player that stalemates himself should get the win, along with the other player, who is also stalemated. In other words, the first player is FORCING the game to end such that he has no legal moves and not in check. Whether the other player can move or not.
In other words, if white stalemates himself, like in the example a couple pages ago, would the game immediately be over and it can't be blacks turn, because it wouldn't matter if black could move or not. Today it wouldn't matter, it's a draw either way. But prior to the 19th century when the stalemated side gets the win it seems a little trickier to award the win in a double stalemate situation.
I understand the reasoning "but it's not white's turn, it's blacks turn". I get that. But if the game is over, it's not blacks turn. Sort of like the classic 3 fold repetition draw. On move two the flag falls. The game is over, even if it's someone's turn and they can 3 fold repeat on the next move.
It's a rule. Stop whining about it.
he know that! he just say that he dont like the rule