MOST STUPID RULE : STALEMATE

Sort:

francis20110

Dec 28, 2020

0

#121

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

If one considers chess to be a simulation of battle, then once the enemy is trapped, has no chance of escape and no where to run, then surely they are defeated.

Yes...but in stalemate the enemy is trapped..but without being in danger. The king is safe. Thats the point.

If considering chess a simulation of battle, then the more realistic solution would be to have a player pass on their move if they have no legal moves available.

Bruh thats the dumbest thing I have heard. Why will you pass the move ?

Goodness me you are quick to overreact, I am merely playing the devil's advocate.

Well there's no point. There are enough reasons to logically justify the existence of this rule. I see you are a new player...and its the typical trend among new players these days to have issues with stalemate , en passant etc. But am sure as you keep playing you will gradually understand them and appreciate them like never before.

I have no problem with the stalemate rules, it seems you are unfamiliar with the term "devil's advocate".

Anonymous_Dragon

Dec 28, 2020

0

#122

francis20110 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

If one considers chess to be a simulation of battle, then once the enemy is trapped, has no chance of escape and no where to run, then surely they are defeated.

Yes...but in stalemate the enemy is trapped..but without being in danger. The king is safe. Thats the point.

If considering chess a simulation of battle, then the more realistic solution would be to have a player pass on their move if they have no legal moves available.

Bruh thats the dumbest thing I have heard. Why will you pass the move ?

Goodness me you are quick to overreact, I am merely playing the devil's advocate.

Well there's no point. There are enough reasons to logically justify the existence of this rule. I see you are a new player...and its the typical trend among new players these days to have issues with stalemate , en passant etc. But am sure as you keep playing you will gradually understand them and appreciate them like never before.

I have no problem with the stalemate rules, it seems you are unfamiliar with the term "devil's advocate".

Yes I am. English isn't my first language. So I had to google it up and check what it means.

francis20110

Dec 28, 2020

0

#123

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

If one considers chess to be a simulation of battle, then once the enemy is trapped, has no chance of escape and no where to run, then surely they are defeated.

Yes...but in stalemate the enemy is trapped..but without being in danger. The king is safe. Thats the point.

If considering chess a simulation of battle, then the more realistic solution would be to have a player pass on their move if they have no legal moves available.

Bruh thats the dumbest thing I have heard. Why will you pass the move ?

Goodness me you are quick to overreact, I am merely playing the devil's advocate.

Well there's no point. There are enough reasons to logically justify the existence of this rule. I see you are a new player...and its the typical trend among new players these days to have issues with stalemate , en passant etc. But am sure as you keep playing you will gradually understand them and appreciate them like never before.

I have no problem with the stalemate rules, it seems you are unfamiliar with the term "devil's advocate".

Yes I am. English isn't my first language. So I had to google it up and check what it means.

I don't disagree with the rules of stalemate, I was simply suggesting a reason why one might take issue with them.

Anonymous_Dragon

Dec 28, 2020

0

#124

francis20110 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

francis20110 wrote:

If one considers chess to be a simulation of battle, then once the enemy is trapped, has no chance of escape and no where to run, then surely they are defeated.

Yes...but in stalemate the enemy is trapped..but without being in danger. The king is safe. Thats the point.

If considering chess a simulation of battle, then the more realistic solution would be to have a player pass on their move if they have no legal moves available.

Bruh thats the dumbest thing I have heard. Why will you pass the move ?

Goodness me you are quick to overreact, I am merely playing the devil's advocate.

Well there's no point. There are enough reasons to logically justify the existence of this rule. I see you are a new player...and its the typical trend among new players these days to have issues with stalemate , en passant etc. But am sure as you keep playing you will gradually understand them and appreciate them like never before.

I have no problem with the stalemate rules, it seems you are unfamiliar with the term "devil's advocate".

Yes I am. English isn't my first language. So I had to google it up and check what it means.

I don't disagree with the rules of stalemate, I was simply suggesting a reason why one might take issue with them.

Yes I get it.

Sam_Newbie

Dec 28, 2020

0

#125

Stalemate did mean different things back in the old days, centuries ago. It was counted as a win in some regions, as a loss in others. And I remember reading that they actually did make you pass a move when in stalemate somewhere.

It might be one of the rules that changes again in the future.

NikkiLikeChikki

Dec 28, 2020

0

#126

If chess were a simulation of battle, castle couldn’t move, bishops would be in a cathedral, queens would definitely not be roaming a battlefield, they wouldn’t be the most powerful soldier, and all the pieces would be moving at the same time.

It’s not a simulation of battle. It’s a game of strategy and tactics with rules.

NikkiLikeChikki

Dec 28, 2020

0

#127

Being able to pass a move is a terrible idea. Putting an opponent into zugzwang is one of the most important advance skills that exist. You can’t just say “I’m good, you go ahead.”

There is nothing broken or stupid about the rule. It’s a rule. Games have rules. Players who aren’t skilled enough to employ the rules whine about them.

GMPatzer

Dec 28, 2020

0

#128

DaRealNoob404

Dec 28, 2020

0

#129

Like when I’m about to win and then- Oof, stalemate

Caesar49bc

Dec 28, 2020

0

#130

president_max wrote:

A bad workman blames his tools. Also what's ola?

"Ola" might be a generational slang. A magician would say "ola!" just before finishing a magic trick.

Caesar49bc

Dec 28, 2020

0

#131

In tie breaking, black usually gets draw odds, but less time than White. There are many ways for tie breaks that have been invented over the years, but draw odds with less time is used most of the time.

Other tiebreak systems are used because, for some reason, draw odds with less time can't used, or is not ideal for the tournament: most often is that the tournament doesn't have time for tiebreak games, which is very common with scolastic events.

rishabh11great

Dec 28, 2020

0

#132

Noobs make such forums.

LetsPlay226

Dec 28, 2020

0

#133

please don't cry even one of the greatest chess player kasparov once did a biggest blunder that he was about to win in the final of junior chess tournament but ended in draw due to stalemate. i think the most stupid rule is that you lose when you are about to win because of force resign due to disconnection while the time left is still much long

francis20110

Dec 29, 2020

0

#134

NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

If chess were a simulation of battle, castle couldn’t move, bishops would be in a cathedral, queens would definitely not be roaming a battlefield, they wouldn’t be the most powerful soldier, and all the pieces would be moving at the same time.

It’s not a simulation of battle. It’s a game of strategy and tactics with rules.

I literally used the word "if" in my original comment, typical American response by throwing up a fuss about nothing.

NikkiLikeChikki

Dec 29, 2020

0

#135

Ridiculous. The “if” implies a starting point for discussion or a premise upon which an argument is made. You posited that chess should be viewed as an analog to war, and I merely pointed out that the supposition was insupportable and that any argument based upon such an analogy is necessarily flawed.

I’m not sure how it’s a fuss to merely point out that an argument has no merit. I only wrote a few sentences, so it seems to me that I wasn’t the one raising a fuss. I was merely refuting a bad argument.

francis20110

Dec 30, 2020

0

#136

NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

Ridiculous. The “if” implies a starting point for discussion or a premise upon which an argument is made. You posited that chess should be viewed as an analog to war, and I merely pointed out that the supposition was insupportable and that any argument based upon such an analogy is necessarily flawed.

I’m not sure how it’s a fuss to merely point out that an argument has no merit. I only wrote a few sentences, so it seems to me that I wasn’t the one raising a fuss. I was merely refuting a bad argument.

No, the "if" implies a condition that some people may believe (me not being one of them). I certainly was not positing that is should be, only that some people may view it is as such.

You then went to on to state I was whining about the rules, or even implied I thought it was "stupid" based on your false interpretation that I thought the rule should be changed. A big overreaction to someone simply playing Devil's advocate.

Darthjimmy29

Jan 2, 2021

0

#137

I'm getting back into Chess and against the computer, winning and stalemate. Say what?!?!

SwordStalker7171

Jan 22, 2021

0

#138

It's the dumbest rule ever created in any game.

Anonymous_Dragon

Jan 23, 2021

0

#139

SwordStalker7171 wrote:

It's the dumbest rule ever created in any game.

You are dumb enough to not understand the reason behind it

LetsPlay226

Jan 23, 2021

0

#140

stalemate shows that chess comtains wisdom and knowledge, it is wisdom cause stalemate occurs when a king trying the best to survive until being cornered but not give up his struggle to escape then when the enemy fails to capture him a moral standard demands that a king should be respected that means to let the king alone. it is knowledge cause stalemate tells what chess is about,to win you should checkmate, to draw both sides should avoid being checkmate on other word a draw occurs when there is no checkmate