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?
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
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..
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.
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
No, because then checkmate wouldn't even have to be possible to win. The side with a lone king could win even though normally that's already a guaranteed draw for the other side. Why should a side that normally could even refuse to move and still get a draw due to the other side having no mating material left, now be able to lose due to stalemate? The problem is most people think of this when it comes to stalemate:
Not this:
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
Thats not what I meant. I don't want it to be a win nor a draw. I want it to be a half-win. I'll explain why below.
A draw is a half win. There's no other result than a draw, win, or loss. The points just reflects the result, not what type of draw/win it is.
Under your system, white would get 3/4 of a point here:
But only 1/4 here:
How does that make sense?
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
No, because then checkmate wouldn't even have to be possible to win. The side with a lone king could win even though normally that's already a guaranteed draw for the other side. Why should a side that normally could even refuse to move and still get a draw due to the other side having no mating material left, now be able to lose due to stalemate? The problem is most people think of this when it comes to stalemate:
Not this:
unless he just took a piece with the queen, white deserves to get punished for actual carelessness in the first one
lucky to get a draw
A draw is a half win. There's no other result than a draw, win, or loss. The points just reflects the result, not what type of draw/win it is.
Under your system, white would get 3/4 of a point here:
But only 1/4 here:
How does that make sense?
Good examples. But it's not about the material, it's about the position.
In position #1, it's black's fault that he is mated (locked), but white's fault that there is no check. So it's half-checkmate, hence half-win for white.
In the second position, white is mated, but black has no check, hence half-loss for white.
It's not a half-checkmate, it's not like white could even capture the king next move. That's the other misconception, that stalemate means a king could be taken next move if a legal move was available. Stalemate just means a lack of legal moves, nothing to do with a king being in danger.
The two major misconceptions when it comes to stalemate being a win argument are:
1. That the side doing the stalemating is "winning".
2. That the stalemated side would lose a king next move if he could move.
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 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.
Likewise, is a king + 1 knight vs king now a forcible mate? Or is it immediately a draw once a KNK position is reached at all?
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 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!
Likewise, is a king + 1 knight vs king now a forcible mate? Or is it immediately a draw once a KNK position is reached at all?
King knight King is a draw but 2 knights vs King is not since stalemate can be forced.
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.
The king should just be capturable and stalemate should be a win, simple as that.
I already mentioned checklock and deadlock and why it shouldn't be legal.
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.
The stalemated player should get the 3/4 because more often than not the non-stalemated player has blundered in some way so as to allow stalemate. Typically the non-stalemated player is so busy 'punishing' the opponent that will not resign by promoting pawn after pawn after pawn rather than simply playing for a quick checkmate. In hundreds of my bullet games I have been the 'punisher' by stalemating these arrogant players with their 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or more Queens.
I AM THE STALEMATE KING !!! FEAR THE STALEMATE KING !!!
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.