I don't think it's too complex.
According to Wikipedia, 'the point of the ¾–¼ scoring is to allow the weaker side to still benefit from avoiding checkmate while giving the stronger side something to play for even when checkmate cannot be attained.'
Should stalemating count as 3/4ths of a win?
Sort:
May 14, 2024
0
#23
Wikipedia says a bunch about the history of the stalemate rule. It also mentions the half win system. U guyz can read if you like.
Have you considered that if you change the stalemate rule, you render the last 200 years of chess analysis redundant....
No thought not.
SparrowMount wrote:
MariasWhiteKnight wrote:
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.
I agree #5 makes no sense, but I don't see why you don't like the half-win thing. It seems very logical.
Uh, because you introduce a special rule just for stalemate ? Thats ugly. I said so.
Just like the last rule of suddenly introducing skipping moves. Cant be done any other way either.
The problem with declaring stalemate a win is that its not a mate, thus who wins anyway ? Historically both sides have had been declared winner in this situation. Its not clear. Thats why, I repeat myself, draw is the best solution.
Again I dont really care about anything but making chess the most interesting and challenging game, and stalemate being a draw is the best solution for that.
Khnemu_Nehep wrote:
Stalemate is either an error you made OR forced.
Which means the opponent managed to get into that position or you blundered. It's a draw.
Well, no, there is also the third option of a losing party intentionally forcing a stalemate of themselves, so they dont lose.
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
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.
What happens to the extra 1/13? Does that belong to the referee?
Why am I not surprised you were the first to catch that. That goes to the house. A gratuity of sorts.
May 14, 2024
0
#28
Lagomorph wrote:
Have you considered that if you change the stalemate rule, you render the last 200 years of chess analysis redundant....
No thought not.
Actually, since we have engines today, we can make instant new analysis from new rules whenever we like. 200 years of manual work is unnecessary.
Anyway, the rules of chess haven't been the same for 200 years. FIDE was only founded in 1924 (100 years ago).
A little new update could actually prove fun and positive for the game. It will affect top players the most who have studied a lot of endgame theory. But these players have shown adaptation skills with the rise of variants like Chess960. I don't think why a small rule matters much.
SparrowMount wrote:
Lagomorph wrote:
Have you considered that if you change the stalemate rule, you render the last 200 years of chess analysis redundant....
No thought not.
Actually, since we have engines today, we can make instant new analysis from new rules whenever we like. 200 years of manual work is unnecessary.
Anyway, the rules of chess haven't been the same for 200 years. FIDE was only founded in 1924 (100 years ago).
A little new update could actually prove fun and positive for the game. It will affect top players the most who have studied a lot of endgame theory. But these players have shown adaptation skills with the rise of variants like Chess960. I don't think why a small rule matters much.
Those are good points. But still, why the 3/4-1/4 difference?
A half point, evenly split is a sensible option. What specific reason for that exact difference? Is it the cumulative effect, or does it just sound right?
The reason I ask is because if it's not evenly split, how do we measure the amount of wrongness or rightness each side should receive? What about 7/8-1/8 or 9/16-7/16?
I still think the 7/13-5/13 option is a good idea. With the remaining going to a third party. That way if enough games are played the players have to think about allowing the possibility of a third party possibly winning or at least affecting the total amongst the two.
May 15, 2024
0
#30
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Those are good points. But still, why the 3/4-1/4 difference?
A half point, evenly split is a sensible option. What specific reason for that exact difference? Is it the cumulative effect, or does it just sound right?
The reason I ask is because if it's not evenly split, how do we measure the amount of wrongness or rightness each side should receive? What about 7/8-1/8 or 9/16-7/16?
I still think the 7/13-5/13 option is a good idea. With the remaining going to a third party. That way if enough games are played the players have to think about allowing the possibility of a third party possibly winning or at least affecting the total amongst the two.
Oh, actually it's supposed to be a half win (half draw). So (win + draw) / 2 = (1 + 0.5) / 2 = 0.75
For the opponent, half loss = (loss + draw) / 2 = (0 + 0.5) / 2 = 0.25
Make sense?
May 15, 2024
0
#31
As I said earlier, checkmate needs two things: check (king in check) and mate (no legal moves)
Stalemate gets at least one of the two right (rather than a draw which gets none), hence half the win.
That's just my logic.
May 15, 2024
0
#33
Stalemate should always be 1/2-1/2, if the side with the advantage doesn't know how to checkmate, it's their fault
May 15, 2024
0
#34
prawnydagrate wrote:
Stalemate should always be 1/2-1/2, if the side with the advantage doesn't know how to checkmate, it's their fault
It's not just always a skill issue, sometimes its impossible to checkmate despite having a lot of material and a good position. For example, the two knights endgame for the matter or many many pawn endgames. Its just to keep things fair.
May 15, 2024
0
#35
Stalemate isn't unfair. It's an important rule of the game. It is always a skill issue. If you're up two knights but you trade off all the pawns for some reason, then you clearly didn't know how to win up two pieces
May 15, 2024
0
#36
I don't recall what game this was exactly, but there's a famous grandmaster game I think, where one side was down a full rook but sacrificed their rook for completely free (capturing it was forced), and on the next move, trapped their own king by pushing a pawn, and there was nothing that the offending side could do to avoid stalemating the defending side. Again, skill issue. Should've seen that coming and prevented it
May 15, 2024
0
#37
Optimissed wrote:
Without the attack on the king, the game can't be won and isn't won. Yet one player can't move, so the game can't continue. Therefore the only reasonable result is either a draw or win for the stalemated player. (A full point). Messing around with half wins and three quarters of a point would lead to game fixing.
Can you elaborate what you mean by "game fixing"?
May 15, 2024
0
#39
I googled it. No rule is game fixing as long as its predetermined before the game and it applies to both parties.
May 15, 2024
0
#40
Optimissed wrote:
There could be situations where for one players, an extra quarter point could lead to prizes and wouldn't affect the other player, so a stalemate could be arranged between them.
Of course, in practice the whole idea is unacceptable.
How can a stalemate be "arranged between them?"
A stalemate is a positional draw, not a theoretical draw nor a draw by agreement.
Half a win and therefore three quarters of a point for the stalemated player, yes. But it's too complex.
U mean the stalemater, not the player who got stalemated.