dearprince wrote:
I don't think that's a checklock. Black can simply move one of his pawns.
The pawns move the other way.
Should stalemating count as 3/4ths of a win?
Sort:
Pawns are going down the board in that one.
May 15, 2024
0
#124
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
SparrowMount wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
I think just declaring any position where a side can't legally move but is not in a check, a draw, is the most logically consistent. Splitting hairs between what types of checks, checkmates, and stalemates are wins, 3/4 wins, or draws makes less sense than the current stalemate rule.
Also, note in that smothered mate example, and in my deadlock one, some would claim a lack of legal moves should result in a loss by forfeit (even if the kings couldn't be taken had they had free squares to move to). In such a case, does this game end in insufficient mating material, or a "win" by stalemate?
Black has no legal moves, but he isn't required to make legal moves once an insufficient mating material position is reached (since the game is already over). Or..is it really insufficient mating material at all if we now include stalemate positions as winning. You see however you try to justify stalemate not being a draw, you end up with contradictions/circular reasoning that ends up being more troublesome than the current stalemate = draw rule itself.
You bring up interesting points.
First, it's not a loss by forfeit. Black isn't not making a move because he just isn't, it's because he can't. It has to be stalemate or checkmate.
Also, as long as one player has sufficient material, the game will go on. And if one player magically stalemates himself with his own material, he is simply stalemated and will get 0.25.
Simple.
OK so what you are saying is if an insufficient mating material position is reached, even if the end position is technically a stalemate it's just a draw correct?
But this would mean some stalemate positions would end up being a win and others a draw. That's why I like stalemate being a draw, because it applies to all stalemates, no matter who is doing the stalemating, and what type of stalemate position it is. Any other rule would have to be split up into different sub-rules depending on the position, like who is stalemated, is it a king capture or forfeit, is it a deadlock vs only one side stalemated..etc.
Oh, if insufficient material is reached the same time as stalemate, stalemate will have higher priority (just like checkmate does) and hence a half-win.
Why though? Once checkmate is no longer possible, both sides are immediately relieved of the obligation to make moves, so why does the position happening to be a stalemate change that? Stalemate means they can't legally move, but insufficient mating material means they no longer have to, see where it becomes a Grey area now?
What about this position where stalemate could be forced in 3 moves?
Sure insufficient mating material occurred first, but stalemate can be forced in 3 moves immediately after? At one point does stalemate no longer trump insufficient pieces? On the move? 1 move away? 2 moves away?
May 15, 2024
0
#126
Umm, there is sufficient material as long as either party has material enough to force stalemate (2 knights for example) The game will continue without a draw.
Generally minor piece vs king endgames are not forcible stalemates, hence if such a position is reached, it's a draw. But if the position is reached at the same time a stalemate occurs, its just stalemate.
SparrowMount wrote:
Umm, there is sufficient material as long as either party has material enough to force stalemate (2 knights for example) The game will continue without a draw.
Generally minor piece vs king endgames are not forcible stalemates, hence if such a position is reached, it's a draw. But if the position is reached at the same time stalemate occurs, its stalemate
Ah, but it is possible to force with 1 knight, depending on the position. Like I posted earlier:
So it's an interesting question as to whether (if we pretend stalemate is a win) play should be allowed to continue in such positions since stalemate is a possibility! The only genuine insufficient piece draw would be king vs king then! And I don't think one should be able to lose to a lone king, which is part of the reason I prefer stalemate being a draw. I think if you've managed to capture every single one of your opponents pieces, you've earned at least a minimum of a draw as a game result.
No every move is forced. The white king triangulates and the knight cuts off the squares until the king is in the corner. What part of that is a "help-mate"?
I only bothered reading the first four pages.
Note that if stalemate becomes a win under FIDE rules then FIDE would have to rule that a lone king CAN win on time if the opponent's material included an a or h pawn (it would be possible to reach a position with the rook pawn is one square from queening, it's king on the queening square, and the opposing king is two files away.
Thus a lone king has a reason to continue playing for a win when the opponent is low on time.
Changing the stalemate rule to anything other than a draw for both players also automatically changes the rule about the clock flagging.
Yes that's what I was saying before, that only king vs king would be the guaranteed draw for both sides. Even king vs 1 knight would then be a loss on time as 1 knight can not only stalemate a lone king, it can force it, as showed above a couple times.
SparrowMount wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
I think just declaring any position where a side can't legally move but is not in a check, a draw, is the most logically consistent. Splitting hairs between what types of checks, checkmates, and stalemates are wins, 3/4 wins, or draws makes less sense than the current stalemate rule.
Stalemate is kind of half-checkmate right? The victim is mated (with no legal moves) but there's no check to call it a day. That's why I'm arguing that it should be a half-win (0.75). That's just my logic.
If this rule is added, then games could be more decisive and tournament rankings could be more precise. Also, it'll have a more satisfying effect than just the 1/2-1/2 of a draw. Just my thoughts.
I don't think a stalemate is a half checkmate at all. It just means one side has no legal moves, and is not in check.
A check is half of a checkmate though. Under attack, but can escape. But in a stalemate, the other king doesn't need to under any threat at all. The example posted where the black king is deadlocked is one where the both kings are not under any sort of attack at all. But one side can't move any pieces. That's not a half checkmate.
May 15, 2024
0
#133
DenialOfNature wrote:
"The enemy cannot finish you off because the game is already ended."
thats all we are discussing here, it shouldnt be ended.
stalemate should be called out when both sides can not beat eachother 'because' they are consistently resisting.. being stuck doesnt mean defending.
It ends because the game cannot continue.
Legally, one player cannot move two pieces of the same color back-to-back except castling.
White must make ONE move, then Black ONE move, then White ONE move, then Black ONE move, etc.
The moment one side cannot move, the game is officially over. If the player that cannot move is also in check, it is checkmate and his opponent wins. If the player that cannot move is not in check, there is no option but to declare the game a draw because the player to move can't legally move, and yet, his king is not in check. Therefore, it is stalemate and a draw. The game CANNOT continue because you cannot "pass" when it is your move.
May 15, 2024
0
#134
DenialOfNature wrote:
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
If you can't deliver checkmate you did not win, no matter how many pieces you have left, or how surrounded your enemy is. It's a draw.
what you are doing is reminding us the current rules. but we already know the rules.
what we are doing here is criticizing the logic of stalemate and how it actually should be.
And we are here to criticize your faulty logic!
May 15, 2024
0
#135
KeeperOfTheLostGable wrote:
It's a draw. It's the fault of the person who's being stalemated for losing and the one in the winning position for not checkmating, so they're both at fault. Draw, simple.
Not all stalemates are in lost positions.
WK h8, WP h7, BK f8, White to move. White cannot possibly be losing as Black has no mating material, yet White is the one stalemated!
May 15, 2024
0
#137
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.
"
Your logic is total baloney.
First off, nothing anywhere says that you must have a legal move in all draw scenarios. This is proof here. Stalemate is a draw, and in stalemate, one side has no legal move. He also is not in check.
By your flawed logic, what you are saying is that if I go dancing around with my king and you cannot catch me, I get 1/2 a point, but if I can self-inflict no legal moves on myself without being checkmated, I should get a bonus? Horse(bleep)!
I get the same half point whether I am Black with just a king each, or Black with WKa1, WRg7, WPh6, BKh8, BRb8, with Black to move and I play 1...Rb1+ 2.Ka2 Rb2+ 3.Ka3 Rb3+ 4 Ka4 Rb4+ 5.Ka5 Rb5+ 6.Ka6 Rb6+ 7.Ka7 Ra6+ 7.Kb8 Ra8+ and once you decide to take the Rook, I am stalemated.
Plus, your proposal would be an UTTER WASTE OF TIME.
By your garbage policies, we have to sit there and make 50 moves each. Why? Because if White ever takes the Rook with the King, Black gets 0.75, while if he sits there like a reject and moves away 50 times and calls 50 move rule, Black only gets 0.5. So let's sit around wasting time making and writing (in over the board chess) 100 moves (50 for each player).
A stalemate scores the same as 50 moves to avoid such utter ridiculousness. I simply take the Rook and score it a draw on the pairing sheet and move on.
And yet here you are demanding counter-arguments? My counter argument is use your head and realize these ridiculous contortions it would create and lay off of it! Give it up! You're wrong! Move on!
May 15, 2024
0
#139
SparrowMount wrote:
Steve97a wrote:
I am the Stalemate King! I approve of the player who is stalemated gets 3/4 of a point vs the current 1/2. I play for stalemate in every game and I have HUNDREDS of stalemates in bullet on chess.com.
I AM THE STALEMATE KING! FEAR THE STALEMATE KING!
Why does everyone want the stalemated player to get 3/4? I'm saying that the stalemater should get 3/4, not the opposite.
Did White checkmate Black or else force Black to resign or run out of time? No? Then it cannot be a win for White!
Did Black checkmate White or else force White to resign or run out of time? No? Then it cannot be a win for Black!
All results not in those above two scenarios is a draw, no freaking matter how! Stalemate, Agreement, Time vs Insufficient Material to Mate, Repetition, 50 moves, etc.
May 15, 2024
0
#140
Stalemates and draws are an important part of the game.
Adding to its diversity.
And it means that when one side is winning - that side still has to be alert in many situations lest he/she blunders into stalemating an opponent through laxity.
Old saying but also good saying:
If its not broken don't fix it.
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
It's not 'useless' to capture the king. Capturing the king is illegal for a reason.
There's a rare special position called a checklock it looks like this:
It's clearly checkmate, but if it's mandatory to capture the king, it's a draw.
There's another special position called a deadlock like the one @EndgameEnthusiast2357 posted:
This is a stalemate in chess (with half-win system) but a draw if the king must be captured.
That's why kings shouldn't be captured. Checklocks should be wins and deadlocks should be half-wins. Otherwise, they would be draws.
Declaring stalemates as direct wins is just as bad as calling it a draw. It's not a full checkmate. It's a half-checkmate.
I don't think that's a checklock. Black can simply move one of his pawns.