i need help im so bad at chess
MOST STUPID RULE : STALEMATE
Sort:
Aug 27, 2024
0
#483
You accidentally made it black to move. Either that or u put the king on the wrong square. Either way it’s mate in four. (But that’s stockfish mate in four, so it wouldn’t be seen by lower players.)
I meant white is stalemating black but obviously isn't winning nor could black get his King taken next move, so it's a fallacy to claim stalemate should be a win for that reason, it doesn't apply to all positions.
BenjaminLHull wrote:
You accidentally made it black to move. Either that or u put the king on the wrong square. Either way it’s mate in four. (But that’s stockfish mate in four, so it wouldn’t be seen by lower players.)
What position are you talking about?
If delivering stalemate is a win then if White has a lone king and Black has an army including any of: an a pawn; an h pawn; a b pawn/c pawn/light square bishop(or pawn that can promote on the light squares)/rook (or another promotable pawn; other positions, then Black can get stalemates and if White flags then changing the FIDE rules to consider getting stalemated a loss would mean that White would lose on time.
Some stalemated positions:
White Pa6, Ka8, Black Kb6, white moves a7 and Black moves Kc7
White Ba8, Rb8, Pb7, Pc6, Kc8, Black Ke8, white moves c7 and Black moves Ke7
White Ra8, Ba7, Kb8, Pb7, Pb5, Black Kd7, white moves b6 and Black moves Kd8
White Ka8, Qa7, Black Kc8, Nd6, white moves Qb5 and Black moves Nxb5
White Ka8, Rb1, Black Kc8, Bd8, white moves Rb6 and Black moves Bxb6
FIDE says that if you flag and there is ANY sequence of legal moves that lead to you losing over the board then you lose on time. Making stalemate a win will have a MASSIVE impact on the results of a player flagging.
PS I listed minimal material in the stalemate examples. If there is any amount of material on the board that can be reduced to that material by any sequence of legal moves then the additional material can be deemed to be capturable to get to the listed stalemate positions. With this rule change a lone king would be able to win on time against a player that still has an entire army and a king+bishop or king+knight would be able to win on time against a player that has an entire army including all eight pawns having been promoted to queens.
Insufficient mating material would no longer be a thing as a king and knight or king and bishop could stalemate and even force stalemate in specific positions:
Aug 29, 2024
0
#491
Tfw this still going on
Op just being salty got stalemated when he missed a freaking M1
Also its bad to get stalemated
Its worse when you got stalemated in a winning position
Way even worse when you stalemating yourself because cant find the mate
Stalemate is just one of the rules
If you mad about it just learn how to not got into one
Or even better make a chess 2.0.
And make it played by many people all over the world
Tldr: git gud
Aug 29, 2024
0
#492
idkanymore0-0 έγραψε:
I think that stalemate is the worst rule which ever exists... You are about to win and Ola! Stalemate?!
I love stalemates because most of the games I play I'm losing so it's them stalemating.
But it's not a battle, it's a game. And if it's someone's move and their king is not in danger but there is also no legal move, then the game is done, but no one wins.
That's a dodge dude. It's not a battle it's a game? If you have no move except to lose you should lose. Their king is obviously in danger if you can't move without dying. It's a stupid, thoughtless, silly pedantic rule that only exists because someone 1000s of years ago made a stupid, thoughtless, silly, pedantic rule with no grounds for inherently existing. If it's your turn and you moving means you HAVE to go into check you should HAVE to move and mate yourself. You've clearly lost any position in the game. It's not a draw.
Can blacks king die next move here? Stalemate does not in any way imply that side is losing.
And if you add a pawn on d3 then even if white got an extra move he'd be the one stalemated, so why on Earth should black lose?
boognishbeast wrote:
But it's not a battle, it's a game. And if it's someone's move and their king is not in danger but there is also no legal move, then the game is done, but no one wins.
That's a dodge dude. It's not a battle it's a game? If you have no move except to lose you should lose. Their king is obviously in danger if you can't move without dying. It's a stupid, thoughtless, silly pedantic rule that only exists because someone 1000s of years ago made a stupid, thoughtless, silly, pedantic rule with no grounds for inherently existing. If it's your turn and you moving means you HAVE to go into check you should HAVE to move and mate yourself. You've clearly lost any position in the game. It's not a draw.
The stalemate rule actually makes a lot of sense. In the game of chess it's up to the opponent to win. It's their job to checkmate your king. It's not your job to do your opponents job for them. They have to do it, not you.
So if the opponent has not checked you, or checkmated you, you are not obligated to move your king into a check, or checkmate position. That would be suicide. Other than resigning, there is no suicide option in chess.
But as it's been pointed out before, stalemate isn't just about the king not being able to move into check. Stalemate is simply one side is not in check and has no legal moves. Stalemate can be a position where the king is in no potential danger at all.
There is something else to consider also. If there were an "option" where someone would have to checkmate themselves how would that work for non stalemate positions? Not everyone is able to see every possible move on the board. People make mistakes, they don't see available moves. Would moving into checkmate be allowed in an otherwise normal game?
idkanymore0-0 wrote:
torrubirubi wrote:
But still.... It causes a lot of trouble
Avia, I know what do you feel, but consider this: if you are losing and your opponent is careless and allow you to make a nice combination which ends with stalemate, then this means that your opponent probably did not play well.
Keep in mind that is it easy to give a winning position away in pawn endgames or when trying to checkmate with K + Q vs K, where a chess player has to know what he is doing. The better you get in chess, the more you will regard stalemate as an interesting part of the game.
Stalemate is valid for both players. Is the same as when playing OTB you have to move a touched figure, even if this means losing the game. This is not unfair, only the rule of the game, valid for both players.
Try to find some stalemate tactics to see how you can save your skin by scarifying material and you will begin to change your attitude.
I've worked on endgames, so stalemate helps me more than it hurts, I would recommend you do the same.
Stalemates are good if you are losing but if you are winning it sucks
Is white winning here?
Black is stalemated. Stalemate does not imply the stalemater is winning.