how do we go about getting rid of stalemate ? there was this really cute chap called "monsterwithnoname" who had this brainwave also, he had all the reasons why it should be abolished (he just forgot to think them through properly). who do we telephone to get rid of this thing once and for all ?
Should we get rid of stalemate?
Sort:
No it is part of the real game keep it original if u do that u will lose a fan (me) now u guys don't want that do u
what would we replace stalemate with? what would happen in stalemate situations? how can you decide who wins?
agree with callogican fully. Not because I dont want to get trapped but to decrease the drawing margin for the best of the best. Its hard enough to convert a winning postion let alone a megar advantage for those guys
batgirl wrote:
You never flipped a coin?
that would go over well with GMs
bouncing_check wrote:
jurassicmark wrote:
Having read Silman's Complete Endgame Course, there are a lot of quirky ways to achieve stalemate from what would normally be a lost position. The vast majority of the time it seems like a gimmicky way to get a draw. .
Yeah, Silman's book is nothing but a bunch of cheap endgame tricks, designed to help the weaker player win when he doesn't deserve to. Back rankers and smothered mates should go into the bin along with stalemate and en passant, they're all just not sporting.
OK, that's a bit of a straw man argument. My actual point was that when stalemate was implemented, the folks who made the rule probably never considered all of the strange ways in which stalemate can occur in a position that would otherwise be winning. For example, Queen vs. pawn on the second to last rank is a win unless it's a c or f pawn, etc.
Doggy_Sanchez wrote:
Stalemate can't determine a winner or loser, because neither of them have completed the objective set out in the game - to win.
To declare somebody the winner, when they haven't won, is grossly unfair. So what if top-level play produces more draws? Many would argue that chess should result in a draw with best play from both sides anyway! And yes, I know stalemate is not ACTUALLY a draw, but for the purposes of my point I'm lumping it in with it.
No decisive victory has been achieved, nor has the other been defeated.
I agree. If the king is not in check, how can that be a win?
well, the king being in check just means he needs to duck out of the way of a direct assault.
any minute now and someone will start up about people not resigning in totally lost positions.
people seem stuck in a certain mindset of just dont let it happen, this is not the point.
To the question how is it a win when a move cant be made, i would say.
Can stalemated person make a move?
Is their clock running?
Obviously this is a tie. What is the problem?
black to move
For most of the history of chess, what we now call a stalemate was considered a victory. Making stalemate a draw is a relatively modern development. In my eyes, ending the game at checkmate or stalemate is a shortcut used to avoid the pointless move of capturing the king (just as we end a draw by repetition rather than playing forever), and has become a rule because the game is universally played this way. The word "checkmate" comes from "shah mat" which means "king is helpless." Stalemate is a perfect example of zugzwang where the stalemated player has been forced into a helpless position.
That being said, there is a lot to say about forcing a player to stalemate you rather than being checkmated. It takes a lot of finesse to force this position in many situations. However, forcing the opponent into being stalemated also takes more care than allowing a draw through repetition because it requires you to corner the king in such a way that it would inevitably be captured should the game be played out one more move (the whole reason why a checkmate is a win). On the other hand, it has also been said that allowing a stalemate to be equivalent to checkmate would oversimplify a lot of endgame theory.
It is because of all these factors that I feel a stalemate should be considered a partial, inferior victory when compared to a checkmate. The stalemating player has created a position in which the opponent is in a helpless zugzwang, and this is the exact reason why the game must end. In my eyes it is not sensible to rule this a draw. It has been proposed that 3/4 of a point should go to the stalemating player while 1/4 should go to the stalemated player. This makes the most sense to me because it credits the stalemating player with achieving a superior position while also giving the inferior player some redemption for avoiding checkmate. In this way it still encourages a player in a superior position to avoid stalemate in favor of checkmate.
In response to those who argue the rules cannot be changed because it invalidates the integrity of the game, I argue the game is flawed and this rule change would improve the integrity of the game. The rules of chess have changed many times over its history and this would not be totally unprecedented.
JGambit wrote:
people seem stuck in a certain mindset of just dont let it happen, this is not the point.
To the question how is it a win when a move cant be made, i would say.
Can stalemated person make a move?
Is their clock running?
the object of the game is to capture/checkmate the king; the king is not even in check in a stalemate; I don't get why this is even a debate
NathanielGraham wrote:
Obviously this is a tie. What is the problem?
black to move
white did not have the skill to checkmate with that huge advantage. white blew it. stalemate
Mar 31, 2014
0
#59
better question: How on earth was this a world championship match with 2500+ rated players! a 5 year old could have played better on either side
Mar 31, 2014
0
#60
ThrillerFan wrote:
Zsofia_D wrote:
Of,course not. Where would you,move if you got stalemated?
There have been posts before trying to argue that stalemate should have the same effect as checkmate. In other words, you win if your opponent doesn't have a legal move instead of you win if your opponent's king can't get out of check.
A couple of others have argued that stalemate should lead to a forced pass, and the other player moves again, which will ultimately lead to a win.
People that have made those claims before are just outright ignorant.
This is indeed absurd (the topic).
But if (for a moment) we were considering making a stalemate draw into a win, if anything, the stalemated side would be more likely to "earn" the credit. Most stalemate situations are either the result of elegant swindles (by the side stalemated) or extreme blunders (by the other). Thus my previous counter-suggestion to this silly suggestion.
Having read Silman's Complete Endgame Course, there are a lot of quirky ways to achieve stalemate from what would normally be a lost position. The vast majority of the time it seems like a gimmicky way to get a draw. .
Yeah, Silman's book is nothing but a bunch of cheap endgame tricks, designed to help the weaker player win when he doesn't deserve to. Back rankers and smothered mates should go into the bin along with stalemate and en passant, they're all just not sporting.