Also double stalemate in this case would be a draw
MOST STUPID RULE : STALEMATE
Sort:
Kyobir wrote:
Stalemate is stupid... It should be a win for the stalemated player, not a draw
I don't know why you bothered bumping this an hour ago. A rule that a stalemated lone king wins would mean that a lone king would also win if the opponent (with any material in addition to a king) ran out of time. This thread should have been allowed to fade away.
No it isn’t
Jun 22, 2023
0
#408
You cannot legally move into Check. And if you cannot move and are not in Check - The game can't continue.
Optimissed wrote:
Kyobir wrote:
Stalemate is stupid... It should be a win for the stalemated player, not a draw
Good, I've been pointing that out for years now. If it had to be a win for someone, that's correct because it would mean that the player with the extra force should have been careful.
It seems to me that in chess (as well as a few other pursuits) that really shouldn't matter. Because whether you have extra force or not, it's probably still a good idea to be careful.
Optimissed wrote:
Kyobir wrote:
Stalemate is stupid... It should be a win for the stalemated player, not a draw
Good, I've been pointing that out for years now. If it had to be a win for someone, that's correct because it would mean that the player with the extra force should have been careful.
As it was pointed out many many many times, the side that is stalemated is not necessarily the side with the extra material.
- STALEMATE STILL STUPID
GodsTemplar wrote:
- STALEMATE STILL STUPID
Dude, how many moves did you have on move 60 that were just mate in 1 instead of stalemating your opponent?
For example there is Rh5 or Rb3 or Qc5 or Qd5 or Qb3 or Q3a4 or Q8a4 or Q8a5 or Q8a6. Are there any more?
Magipi, Rh5 and Rb3 are not mate (c4 is left open). Q8a5 leaves c6 open.
Of course, I almost added Qb2, Qb7 and Qd3 until I remembered that the Rook would have been left on h3 instead of h4.
Personally, I think the strongest argument against stalemate being a win for the stalemated side is that it means that (other than lone king against lone king) any lone king can win via stalemate and that would require a lone king winning on time when the opponent flags. Thus that example game would have been lost if White had run out of time and anybody could play on for a win on time in a position like the one Black had.
You would see silly results in K+P vs K endings with the stronger side having the King abandon the Pawn and pushing it until it is captured after Queening.
Jun 23, 2023
0
#414
When you have nowhere to move but aren't in check, it is stalemate. The objective of the game is checkmate, which means to be in check and unable to escape. Since there is a difference, the rule was created. There's nothing stupid about the rule, it works perfectly, you just have to be aware of it.
One of my most memorable moments in chess was when I sacrificed a rook to prevent a stalemate in the very next move, and I ended up winning anyway. It was OTB and I did not record the moves, unfortunately.
jetoba wrote:
Magipi, Rh5 and Rb3 are not mate (c4 is left open). Q8a5 leaves c6 open.
Of course, I almost added Qb2, Qb7 and Qd3 until I remembered that the Rook would have been left on h3 instead of h4.
Personally, I think the strongest argument against stalemate being a win for the stalemated side is that it means that (other than lone king against lone king) any lone king can win via stalemate and that would require a lone king winning on time when the opponent flags. Thus that example game would have been lost if White had run out of time and anybody could play on for a win on time in a position like the one Black had.
You would see silly results in K+P vs K endings with the stronger side having the King abandon the Pawn and pushing it until it is captured after Queening.
Oops, you are right. Some of those are indeed only mate in 2. Sorry.
On the main subject: personally I think the strongest argument against stalemate being a win is that it has been a draw for 200 years. I would not want to throw away half of the games and books and puzzles of the past 200 years. Not unless there is a really strong and compelling argument against it. And "some students did not pay attention when checkmate and stalemate were explained in their first chess lesson" is not a strong enough reason in my eyes.
stalemate isnt stupid your just stupid if you stalemate in a winning position
Stalemate isn't the worst thing about chess. What about P's that move 2 sqs and then only 1? Not to mention the silly N move . What dummy thought it is a good thing to move in a L shape, how absurd? Don't get me on en passant, I really flip. As for the K being restricted to 1 sq when every one knows the K is the K and can do what he likes. The whole game is a fantasy for nerds.
I love it.
IanShawDulin wrote:
When you have nowhere to move but aren't in check, it is stalemate. The objective of the game is checkmate, which means to be in check and unable to escape. Since there is a difference, the rule was created. There's nothing stupid about the rule, it works perfectly, you just have to be aware of it.
One of my most memorable moments in chess was when I sacrificed a rook to prevent a stalemate in the very next move, and I ended up winning anyway. It was OTB and I did not record the moves, unfortunately.
It's surprising that so many people still have a hard time with that. You are right, the objective of the game is checkmate. So in a position where neither side will checkmate, both sides are incapable of performing the objective of the game. 1/2-1/2 is the most reasonable and fair outcome. The only other option I can see is 0-0. Because both players are eliminated from reaching the goal of the game.
Jun 23, 2023
0
#419
lfPatriotGames wrote:
IanShawDulin wrote:
When you have nowhere to move but aren't in check, it is stalemate. The objective of the game is checkmate, which means to be in check and unable to escape. Since there is a difference, the rule was created. There's nothing stupid about the rule, it works perfectly, you just have to be aware of it.
One of my most memorable moments in chess was when I sacrificed a rook to prevent a stalemate in the very next move, and I ended up winning anyway. It was OTB and I did not record the moves, unfortunately.
It's surprising that so many people still have a hard time with that. You are right, the objective of the game is checkmate. So in a position where neither side will checkmate, both sides are incapable of performing the objective of the game. 1/2-1/2 is the most reasonable and fair outcome. The only other option I can see is 0-0. Because both players are eliminated from reaching the goal of the game.
Exactly. Without the rule, you have a conundrum. Hence, the regulation hundreds of years ago. It's like the offside rule in soccer. You get used to it and move on.
Jul 3, 2023
0
#420
I dont understand people defending stalemate. Its not about the fact that if you blunder leading to a stalemate you deserved to loose, its about the fact that the rule shouldnt exist to begin with! The same goes for if the opponent manages to make a "great play" that ends up in stalemate. The thing is there shouldnt even be a rule that would allow him to win with a single king in the first place. He lost all the pieces, why should he have a chance to draw? Completely unfair. There is no excuse for it really.
Stalemate is stupid... It should be a win for the stalemated player, not a draw