What is even the purpose of removing stalemate? It is a logical continuation based on some of the most basic rules of chess, adds greater strategy to the game (avoiding stalemate if you’re winning and causing stalemate if you’re losing), and doesn’t make anything unfair or broken.
MOST STUPID RULE : STALEMATE
Sort:
Without stalemate what’s even the point of playing once you lose all your pieces (except king)
I think the rule regarding stalemate is fine.
8 days ago
0
#585
Opponent: oh no I have no legal moves! Welp time to skip my turn...
What’s the point of removing stalemate? It is the most logical continuation of the rules of chess for such a scenario and doesn’t make anything worse.
idkanymore0-0 wrote:
I think that stalemate is the worst rule which ever exists... You are about to win and Ola! Stalemate?!
Perhaps you could explain how it makes an less sense than promoting a pawn to a queen?
if stalemate never existed, who would win in a king v king infinate game?
blackmambas1314 wrote:
if stalemate never existed, who would win in a king v king infinate game?
Nobody. That would be a draw due to insufficient material. Which has nothing to do with stalemate.
oh yeahh. whoops. Then what would happen if a king is not in check but can't go? Skipping turns is not as fun as drawing players
Just don’t do it
idk
I've seen complaints about stalemate causing draws and I think this topic can benefit from some historical perspective.
There are games in which stalemate leads to a win for the player that moved last. But in Chess, in England during 18th century, the rule was that stalemate resulted in a win for the stalemated player! Imagine that!
If people complain about stalemate today, how would they have liked the English rule to have been adopted instead?
In Chess, stalemate works in favor of the stalemated party because stalemate already requires a superiority of forces that should be sufficient to mate. So if that superiority cannot achieve mate, the game penalizes the stalemate.
Among classic games, Chess is special in having been played with all kinds of rules before settling in the current form in the 19th century (and I'm talking of the basic rules, because competitive rules have continued to change). The rules of Chess aren't what they are because of a respect of tradition. They are what they are because they survived experimentation over centuries of play. So is the case with stalemate - it results in a draw because that is the outcome that most players found most reasonable for this situation. The question was posed, was answered, and if it still arises today, it is only due to ignorance of the past.
7 days ago
0
#595
Stalemate is a punishment for restricting your opponent too much, it's not stupid at all. Why would you win the game if you haven't checkmated? A draw is the only viable result there.
You should get trophies 🏆 for an stalemate
7 days ago
0
#598
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!
RichColorado wrote:
Maybe the player that is STALEMATED should be forced to make A MOVE.
Or maybe we shouldn't change a fundamental rule of chess, throwing out hundreds of years of chess history for no reason. Maybe.
7 days ago
0
#600
magipi wrote:
RichColorado wrote:
Maybe the player that is STALEMATED should be forced to make A MOVE.
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!
Stalemate
I have a new challenge, try getting those stalemates without having your friend purposely play those moves.
What if my friend and I purposely play those moves though? Intent does not create exceptions to the rules of chess.