Of course it's nearly always your fault if you stalemate an opponent, because that is the way the rules work.
It's just a bizarre rule - I think that's why new players struggle to understand it. I can't think of another game where a player is unable to continue playing (and their opponent is) and they don't automatically forfeit the game.
I enjoyed once very much because of the rule of stalemate. I was playing and I was to lose. The opponent had a big material advantage. It was daily chess. Then I noticed that I could move to situation where the "natural" answer to my move if you don't think would lead to stalemate. I did the move and suggested draw. My opponent answered very angry. What kind of draw? I am clearly winning. And he made a move and it was stalemate. I remember it sometimes again and again and smile for that.
No it is a good rule just get good at the game.
Do you have any suggestions for a new rule? Maybe they win instead of drawing?
you are right, how can this situation happen in a battle? it's your turn king, make your move! I can't.. there is nowhere I can go!! I'm not even in check.. if it was your turn, you could have kill me but.. nothing to do now.. Well.. battle is over I guess, let's go back to our homes. peace.
Do you have any suggestions for a new rule? Maybe they win instead of drawing?
That would allow a lone king to win (Black Ke6, White Kh8, Ph7) with ... Kf7 stalemating white and winning with a lone Black K vs a White K+P.
That would change the rule about whether a flagged opponent loses if a sole king (not flagged) could win by flagging a player K plus a-pawn (or h-pawn) plus any other amount of material.
This is "Gay" apparently, as previously stated in a different thread .... But I don't think it is gay myself. And also the chess being happy thing I'm also questioning that too.
I know it's awesome.
Hahaha
It's a good rule. It's only annoying if you are in a time scramble or if you are new to the game and oblivious to it.
To be fair it is an amazing rule - you can be being destroyed, and yet you still have the chance to punish inaccurate play. Even if you are three queens up and your rook looks nice (rooks always like nice) you still have to think about your moves.
(P.S. not having a go at the OP, I am pretty sure after being annoyed by this rule it will be something that is learned, if you look for stalemates, you will also get better at looking for mates.)
There were many, many things which used to happen in 1807 which we have viciously disregarded so "it used to happen in 1807 so it's fine" attitude does not justify the rule
It's a good rule. It's only annoying if you are in a time scramble or if you are new to the game and oblivious to it.
its annoying because it doesn't make any logical sense
Shaming someone for their rating instead of logically defending this stupid "rule" doesn't make you sound like a logical person.
i agree, stalemate is one of the dumbest rules with the enpasant move THE most dumbest
BTW, I have heard GMs say that they don’t like the stalemate rule, but they aren’t jumping up and down on their soapboxes about it. Mostly they say, “meh, don’t like it” in the same way someone would say they don’t like mosquito bites. It’s nothing they rage about like the whiners in forums here.