I think stalemate gives more game balance because it gives more opportunity for black to make the game resulted to draw. If not, this will give white more advantage given that it has already one move ahead. This game is already not balance: Chess Engines calculated that White wins 55% of a time (stalemate included).
Petition to declare stalemate as a winðŸ˜
Sort:
Stalemating is really annoying but if you stalemate someone then you don't deserve 2 win
Yurinclez2 wrote:
a win for who?
Â
For black as they made such a move that white has literally no legal moves left. Stalemate should be a win for the side who made the last move.
how about a petition to take all knights off the opening position?
Or to add 2 extra bishops for both sides?? Or to force winners to stand on their heads and eat flowers?
While the rule definitely makes sense, it is kind of weird from a chess 'lore' (lol) standpoint. If one side is totally defeated in a battle and their king is left hiding in the bushes is he really gonna get away?
Sep 2, 2021
0
#28
If you’re too staggeringly idiotic to abide by the rules of a game, find a new, preferably simpler game (checkers perhaps?) or just stop crying and get good.
Stalemate has never been a win, if anything it should be a loss if the side stalemating was winning, as penalty for their overwhelming stupidity.
Stalemate has never been a win, if anything it should be a loss if the side stalemating was winning, as penalty for their overwhelming stupidity.
Haha
pakhitewari escreveu:
No discussion. Stalemate is a win. idc.
get good
Â
nice cock
Â
Sep 2, 2021
0
#32
xXHazzaBXx wrote:
I admit it was very frustrating when I was starting out and this would happen to me, but you have to realise that most stalemates are the result of carelessness and it is also a legitimate strategy, especially on higher levels to try and force a draw in a losing position by putting themselves in stalemate.
Bingo. Agree 100%
Sep 2, 2021
0
#33
EBowie wrote:
xXHazzaBXx wrote:
I admit it was very frustrating when I was starting out and this would happen to me, but you have to realise that most stalemates are the result of carelessness and it is also a legitimate strategy, especially on higher levels to try and force a draw in a losing position by putting themselves in stalemate.
Bingo. Agree 100%
some of the most legendary stalemate's wouldn't exist if stalemate were a win
Sep 2, 2021
0
#34
Immaculate_Slayer wrote:
pakhitewari escreveu:
No discussion. Stalemate is a win. idc.
get good
Â
yes get gooder
Stalemate is a really weird rule. But we need more game balance here so even thought it is annoying, I have to accept it because it makes the game more challenging.
If ever stalemate will be gone, I suggest that first move two square move of pawn must be abolish to give black more chance to win.
So does black win then?
Â
Sep 3, 2021
0
#40
ItsJumpCat wrote:
Stalemate can be like 10 queens to one king and black got a draw for not being able to move. This doesn’t make sense, why would you get a draw by not being able to move?
Â
So what do you make of the previous two posts?
If the rule were that a player not in check with no legal moves must "knock", Black would win the first but you'd just get a lot of knocking on the second, so the rule would have to specify two consecutive knocks is a draw, which could still give you a draw with a large discrepancy in forces (either way round).
That can occur without any stalemate considerations anyway. Part of the charm of the game.Â
Arbitrarily declaring the side to move lost when he's not in check if he has no legal moves makes no sense at all. The game can't continue (with standard rules) but nobody won, so a draw is the only sensible option if you want to assign a result as soon as the condition occurs.
Stalemate can be like 10 queens to one king and black got a draw for not being able to move. This doesn’t make sense, why would you get a draw by not being able to move?
Â
The scenario you're describing would be a compelling case to remove stalemate as a draw, however that is not the only example. What about the position @Yurinclez2 posted?
Should we give white a win because he has an extra pawn? But one could argue black should win since white's extra pawn is useless and he can't even move.
Â
That's like someone chasing you with a gun and you manage to lock them in a room permanently. Would you consider yourself the loser because you don't have a gun? Even though you locked the other person and they can't get out? (weird analogy I know lol)