Forums

# MOST STUPID RULE : STALEMATE

Sort:

Hvenki

Speaks absolute bs

:flag_ukraine :flag_ukraine :flag_ukraine :flag_ukraine :flag_ukraine :flag_ukraine :flag_ukraine :flag_ukraine :flag_ukraine :flag_ukraine

Stalemate is just a draw.

I agree a little. I think if one player gets another in to stalemate it should count as win/draw of 0.75 of a win instead of 0.5. This would not work for chess.com but for tournaments I think the point system should be this.

Confirmation bias is a thing

Ziryab wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

From an OTB game more than a decade ago, and part of my diagnostic with new students. Black to move.

I think that is excellent. It's a very simple, yet effective way to show the value of stalemate. For a beginner I suppose they would think white should easily win. I think a similar type lesson is the bishop, king, a or h pawn vs. king. Where the bishop is the opposite color of the promotion square. For a beginner it looks like an easy win.

Alas, the position is wrong. White’s king was on g6, not h6. The position before White’s move was an easy win, spoiled by inattention to Black’s stalemate resource.

White to move

I would think the first diagram is better, for a beginner at least. It shows a way to force a draw. As a beginner I probably would not be able to think about all the possibilities in the second diagram.

ChessGod6003 wrote:

I agree a little. I think if one player gets another in to stalemate it should count as win/draw of 0.75 of a win instead of 0.5. This would not work for chess.com but for tournaments I think the point system should be this.

I mentioned in the other topic of awarding points for stalemate, if we are going to split the draw unevenly it should be 7/13 for the person who got stalemated, 5/13 for the person who stalemates, and 1/13 for the house (or arbitrator). That way the arbitrator would have a very small, but still possible, way to win the tournament.

That way it keeps things nice and simple.

Stalemate is a draw like king vs king is draw I’ve have made so many stalemates with king and queen vs king.
NovitiateOne wrote:
If a new player doesn’t know what stalemate is and how it works then it must be time for him to learn it. And if a new player doesn’t want to learn it, then he should be ready for a lot of heartache. It has been declared as a draw since 1807, before any of us was even born.

I was born in 1703, I remember the good old days when stalemate didn't exist

Stalemate, while it may seem frustrating at times, serves an essential purpose in chess. It occurs when a player, whose king is not in check, has no legal moves available and their king is not in checkmate. While it may be seen as a "stupid rule" by some due to its potential to end a game in a draw when victory seems imminent, it adds complexity and strategic depth to chess. Stalemate forces players to consider not only how to attack but also how to position their pieces defensively, promoting balanced gameplay and preventing overly aggressive strategies from dominating. In essence, while stalemate might be exasperating in the moment, it ultimately contributes to the richness of the game.

Elmolm wrote:
Stalemate is a draw like king vs king is draw I’ve have made so many stalemates with king and queen vs king.

K and Q vs K stalemates are the result of pathetic chess players.

Stalemate can be a true art. My favorite is when your king is in the corner (Say, h8) and either they have Rg7 and Pf6 or Ph7 and R anywhere on the 7th rank and you have just a rook and king. You continue to check White to eternity until he takes it and is then stalemate, known as the Eternal Rook draw.

Yes. Change the rules. Opponent must sit there, unmoving, til dead.