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?
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.
But it's better than the other way round. Tell you what, can we settle for half a point each and a promise to try not to do it next time?
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.
Half a win and therefore three quarters of a point for the stalemated player, yes. But it's too complex.
I just looked but didn't see any reasons given, let alone 5.
By reasons, I meant my long, first post. By #5, I meant one of the solutions to stalemate given by @MariasWhiteKnight
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NO, the stalemater should lose because he wasn't careful enough.
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.
The others are all more intelligent than me and they all assumed you did it on purpose because they know you're intelligent like them and they intended to work on it in their lunch break to try to figure out what you might have meant because they preferred not to fall into the trap you'd set for them?
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.
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.
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?
Win for the stalemated party is a very bad idea too.
But it's better than the other way round. Tell you what, can we settle for half a point each and a promise to try not to do it next time?