Should stalemating count as 3/4ths of a win?

.

'Checkmate' is made of two words - check (king on fire) and mate (no legal moves)

In a checkmate, there is check and there is mate,

but in a stalemate, there's no check but only mate,

whereas, in a draw (by insufficient material), there's neither check nor mate, rather *both* players are theoretically unable to deliver checkmate.

My logic: Stalemate gets at least half the checkmate right (no check but mate), whereas a draw does neither. So, a stalemate should be a sort of half-win (half-draw), hence 0.75 points for the stalemater and 0.25 points for the victim.

Suppose the king could be captured in chess. Then every stalemate would be a win. But it's not, because capturing the king is *illegal*. Thus, the victim of stalemate is on move, but has no legal moves. This is rightly 3/4th the fault of the victim for being mated and 1/4th the fault of the stalemater for not checking.

If this rule is implemented, chess games would turn drastically decisive. This would help reduce the need for armageddons and other tiebreaks and improve the ranking systems in tournaments too. Less draws makes the game more fun and less boring to outsiders as well.

Thoughts?

what about stalemate by repetition?

There were some people in recent chess history who suggested something similar. They, however, wanted to make the game better. You, on the other hand, are just angry and frustrated because you couldn't checkmate with 4 minor pieces. This is all very transparent.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/109401656209?username=sparrowmount

Dude that was my opponent, not me. Lol.

Anyway, I made this post before that game. I just had this idea for a while. It had nothing to do with the game.

@wyattisnothere

I only talked about draw by stalemate, I have nothing against draw by repetition. It's a sound rule really.

Im not sure what you mean by 'stalemate by repetition' tho

If .75 points go to the stalemater, and .15 points go to the victim, who gets the other .10 points?

I assume that would have to go the house. Or a little something for the bookie.

Hate it when that happens. Nothing worse than repeating the stalemate position three times.

That's when you have to call over the arbitrator. Especially if someone's flag falls before the third stalemate position.

No, of course not.

Historically there have been 5 solutions to the statemate problem:

1. Draw

2. Win for the side that stalemated

3. Win for the side that is stalemated and has no legal move

4. Half win for the side that stalemated

5. The stalemated party can skip their move

The two last solutions are bad, because special rules just for stalemate are introduced. Very ugly.

Leaves the first three solutions. And of these, Draw is clearly the best, because it introduces complexity especially in the endgame.

The best solution is therefore #1, and thats what we have.

Oh, my bad. I meant 0.25. I'll fix it.

I agree #5 makes no sense, but I don't see why you don't like the half-win thing. It seems very logical.

no, skill issue

The draw and win are extreme, so a half-win being in between makes even more sense.

Win for the stalemated party is a very bad idea too.

In cases of stalemate it should be 7/13 of a point for the side that wants the stalemate, and 5/13 for the side trying to avoid it. That way it keeps things simple.

Worth adding, this system makes 2-knight endgames count as a half-win.

Edmar Mednis, late GM, had said the inability to force checkmate with 2 knights is "one of the great injustices of chess." He would be happy at least.

Other stalemates like the opposite king-pawn endgame, the rook pawn endgame and many others would be rightly half-wins too.

It's definitely not better than the other way. It's the worst solution of the five after #5 for the initial reasons I mentioned.

By reasons, I meant my long, first post. By #5, I meant one of the solutions to stalemate given by @MariasWhiteKnight