Ik right
MOST STUPID RULE : STALEMATE
Sort:
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.
Urban Legend: before Chess (an archaic work for Check), we had Capture, a game to capture the opponent's King. A King took it a bit too personally and executed the person whom taught him the game.
what do you know about it
most stupid person : you
Skill issue
Pls just get rid of stalemate
Mar 22, 2023
0
#390
idkanymore0-0 wrote:
I think that stalemate is the worst rule which ever exists... You are about to win and Ola! Stalemate?!
Or it could be the best rule ever--you are about to lose and Ola! Stalemate!
That’s your fault that you stalemate shut up you idiot
I’m very angry at this guy
It might seem annoying but it’s an aspect of the game, and you can’t really change it.
Thats right
IFSDI,TGWE.
(letters stand for the first word
idkanymore0-0 wrote:
I think that stalemate is the worst rule which ever exists... You are about to win and Ola! Stalemate?!
It exists because otherwise the game would fall apart. The player could have like 18 minutes left and has to wait them out. This would make the (most likely winning) opponent mad.
Mar 30, 2023
0
#398
If you screw up and stalemate your opponent, it doesn't mean that the rule s*cks! It means that YOU S*CK and that you need to work a little harder on remembering the rules!
stalemate exists so that even if you cant win you have a chance of draw
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)