Can we talk about this?
Should stalemating count as 3/4ths of a win?
Sort:
May 15, 2024
0
#83
Yes. Many stalemates occur in pawn endings where the "superior" player can never queen their pawn if the opponent doesn't move. What is so wonderful about achieving that? In situations where one player has the other king surrounded but blunders and creates stalemate instead of playing accurately and checkmating the opponent, why reward that blunder? Would you give extra credit to a player who had a simple mate in two, missed it, and went on to draw or lose?
May 15, 2024
0
#84
@Optimissed Then can you point out whats wrong with my logic? Or whats not good about it?
May 15, 2024
0
#85
SparrowMount wrote:
I did present an argument. Its in my very first post. I'll copy-paste again.
"
'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.
"
The rules of chess will not be changed over silly wordplay nonsense.
Regardless, it's not a very fair change since the stalemater failed to win as much as the "victim" avoided a loss. 50/50 sounds logical and fair. Which is the current rule.
May 15, 2024
0
#86
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
The rules of chess will not be changed over silly wordplay nonsense.
Regardless, it's not a very fair change since the stalemater failed to win as much as the "victim" avoided a loss. 50/50 sounds logical and fair. Which is the current rule.
It's not wordplay. Checkmate is actually defined as checking your opponent (check) without leaving him squares to move (mate). It requires two things. I just based my logic off of this.
May 15, 2024
0
#88
It sound silly because I tried to make it easy for everyone to understand.
May 15, 2024
0
#89
QuantumTopologistISBACK wrote:
SparrowMount wrote:
.
I meant my second post. I left my first post blank, because I wanted to hear your thoughts before I posted my logic.
May 15, 2024
0
#90
QuantumTopologistISBACK wrote:
SparrowMount wrote:
.
It would make more sense for it to be a win than a fraction of one. We don't need to complicate things and divide up results into fractions.
0.25 and 0.75 are pretty easy to add up in a score. They're not something like 0.33 or 7/13.
May 15, 2024
0
#91
QuantumTopologistISBACK 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.
Better yet: Base it on who has more pieces once the stalemate happens.
No. The aim of chess is to checkmate the king, not to end up better in material. Material doesn't matter as long as the kings are not affected.
May 15, 2024
0
#92
QuantumTopologistISBACK wrote:
SparrowMount wrote:
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.
You are talking about the insufficient material rule, not the stalemate rule.
No I'm not. You can actually force stalemate with two knights, opposite king-pawn and the rook pawn.
May 15, 2024
0
#93
QuantumTopologistISBACK wrote:
SparrowMount wrote: QuantumTopologistISBACK wrote: SparrowMount wrote:
.
I meant my second post. I left my first post blank, because I wanted to hear your thoughts before I posted my logic.
Ridiculous is the word I'm looking for. A complete win for the stalemater is better.
A win for the stalemater is just as bad as a draw for the same reasons I mentioned.
May 15, 2024
0
#94
Btw @QuantumTopologistISBACK, there's something wrong with your quotes. You should recheck the formatting.
May 15, 2024
0
#95
@SparrowMount
i disagreed with you
read it again
if not 0.5-0.5, give advantage to the stalemated player
May 15, 2024
0
#96
Thank you for the time @Optimissed. I think this discussion is futile too as we don't understand each other. So Im signing off as well.
Guys I was joking, of course Stalemate should be a draw. In fact one of the reasons I agree with the rule is because the stalemating side isn't necessarily winning, like here:
Why should Stalemate be a win if checkmate isn't even possible to begin with? Black draws if he flags, so why should white be able to win on stalemate?
May 15, 2024
0
#98
SparrowMount wrote:
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*.
This makes sense honestly. Yes I agree with this.
Naturally, the King can be captured and taken. But sometimes it may seems useless to capture him, so we skip this and call it checkmate. But in a stalemate position, we go back to chess truth, King has to be captured. So it's either the enemy can move their King, or with the current chess etiquette a direct win. Well said Sparrow
May 15, 2024
0
#99
What I'm proposing is not a variant. Rules of chess changed many times in its history. You may or may not agree with me as it is not an issue. No one needs approval to express their opinions. I explained my view on stalemate.
This proposal was made many times in history for a rule change.. Read "Proposed rule change" in wiki..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate
Throughout history, a stalemate has at various times been:
A win for the stalemating player in 10th century Arabia[53] and parts of medieval Europe.[54][55]
A half-win for the stalemating player. In a game played for stakes, the stalemating player would win half the stake (18th century Spain).[56]
A win for the stalemated player in 9th century India,[57] 17th century Russia,[58] on the Central Plain of Europe in the 17th century,[59] and 17th–18th century England.[60][61] This rule continued to be published in Hoyle's Games Improved as late as 1866.[62][63]
and more in wiki..
May 15, 2024
0
#100
DenialOfNature wrote:
What I'm proposing is not a variant. Rules of chess changed many times in its history. You may or may not agree with me as it is not an issue. No one needs approval to express their opinions. I explained my view on stalemate.
This proposal was made many times in history for a rule change.. Read "Proposed rule change" in wiki..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate
Throughout history, a stalemate has at various times been:
A win for the stalemating player in 10th century Arabia[53] and parts of medieval Europe.[54][55]
A half-win for the stalemating player. In a game played for stakes, the stalemating player would win half the stake (18th century Spain).[56]
A win for the stalemated player in 9th century India,[57] 17th century Russia,[58] on the Central Plain of Europe in the 17th century,[59] and 17th–18th century England.[60][61] This rule continued to be published in Hoyle's Games Improved as late as 1866.[62][63]
and more in wiki..
Completely agree.
I did present an argument. Its in my very first post. I'll copy-paste again.
"
'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.
"