MOST STUPID RULE : STALEMATE

Maybe the player that is STALEMATED should be forced to make A MOVE.

A new rule that forces this move only to the player stalemated, . .

It will be called, "SACRIFICE" TO MOVE THE KING TO ANY MOVE WHERE HE WILL TAKEN!

Or maybe we shouldn't change a fundamental rule of chess, throwing out hundreds of years of chess history for no reason. Maybe.

I AGREE WITH YOU. WHEN I'M LOSING I TRY OR HOPE THE OPPONENT WILL BLUNDER

AND I GET STALEMATED!

Yesterday, I was working with some very young children on the simplest possible checkmate. One game ended with this position.

Black to move

u

If the king is not in check, but can't move, then another piece is moved. For example, in this position the king is not in check, but also cannot move.

For me it's a GENIUS rule

For the 10th time, stalemate does not necessarily mean the king would be taken next move.

It just means the player doesn't have a move. They could be winning when it happens..

it's not stupid, it's the only viable result. The stalemated player should not win because usually they are losing in that scenario. However, the stalemating player also should not win because the goal of the game is checkmate, not suffocation.

It does mean every piece cannot move. None of the three pawns can move because all three are blocked. One by the black king, one by the black rook, and one by the white king.

Imagine if white won this game 🤣🤣🤣

To be fair maybe white deserves it if black managed to get his pieces like that! 🤣

Thirteen captures by the Black pawns are required. The White king, a pawn and h pawn cannot be captured so it just works out as a legally reachable position.

An amusing variation would involve swapping the b1 rook and b2 knight, moving the a4 pawn to e4 with it being Black to move. Then ... e3+, Ke1 would be a double stalemate.

Or moving the b3 pawn to d4, the d1 bishop to b3, the a1 king to d1, the d2 rook to a1, the e2 pawn to d2 (12 Black pawn captures needed) and have the final move be White's King on g2 moving to f1 or f2 for stalemate.

If chess is considered a virtual war between two kings. Whether the king is killed or captured it makes no difference in real world as he has lost so this rule really makes no sense.

Chess is not a virtual war. It's a board game. The stalemate rule just accommodates situations where the king is not captured, but cannot move and no other pieces can move either.

Keep in mind (as others have said) the rule isn't just about capturing or killing the king. It's also about having no other pieces able to move as well. I suppose if you want to think of it as a war game, the enemy still has a king and an army, but the king cannot move and the army cannot move either. They are stuck, they haven't won, but they haven't lost either.

It’s cause by skill and not luck. Just let it be

An example of stalemate in a real war in the real world:

Henry II of England also ruled Normandy, Gascony, Brittany, Poitou, and Aquitaine in France and was seeking to add to his empire in 1159 by conquering Toulouse. He raised a great army by calling all the French noble landholders who owed him allegiance to bring their troops and join him in the attack. This army easily overwhelmed the forces of Count Raymond of Toulouse, who retreated into the walled city with no hope of aid and no way to resist a siege for long.

Henry demanded surrender, but it turned out that King Louis VII of France "just happened to be visiting" Toulouse. Louis had no troops, but according to the laws of the time, he was the ultimate overlord of all of Henry's French vassals, and Henry's overlord in France. The Frenchmen were reluctant to attack the city while the King was there, and Henry didn't think it was wise to ask them to disregard their oaths of allegiance. Why should they later abide by their allegiance to him? Henry dismissed his vassals and returned to England.

So, although King Louis had no way to fight back and no way to escape, he managed to preserve his territory of Toulouse. That's the way the laws of politics and warfare were constructed at the time, and everyone concerned recognized and obeyed the rules.

Just like everyone has to recognize and obey the rules of chess as they are agreed upon today. I have noticed that strong players never complain about the stalemate rule, only those who cannot manage to avoid it.

A bad chess player blames the rule 😂 (no hard feelings it's a joke) 😂