It's like a race . 1st to get the king wins
Should we get rid of stalemate?
Sort:
blueemu wrote:
Should we get rid of people who think we should get rid of stalemate?
Perbaps they should be instead made to stand in the corner, facing thr wall. . . .
Stalemate is one of the most rewarding endings for the player in a losing position.
Oct 25, 2020
0
#146
Stalemate is a very common result of many endgames.
Those of us who have devoted our time to studying endgame theory, are not about to throw all that study out the window.
The answer to this, of course, is ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Stalemate is a festering pustule on a noble game.Players who won't resign and jump their king around hoping for a pathetic stupid stalemate would be lost.
Oct 25, 2020
0
#149
There has been some argument that making a stalemate a win for the stalemating side would make some currently drawn positions to be wins, thus lessening the 'draw percentage' that is seen at the highest levels. I thought there was some merit to it, but there was some work done recently and reported on other chess sites that the effect on the overall draw percentage was really quite small. Players tend to change their style of play based on the new rules.
Oct 25, 2020
0
#150
Warlord1981NL wrote:
varelse1 schreef:
Stalemate is a very common result of many endgames.
Those of us who have devoted our time to studying endgame theory, are not about to throw all that study out the window.
That you have practiced for it is not an argument. That does not magically make it a good game mechanic in any way, shape or form. It is dumb, it doesn't make sense and it doesn't even fit in with the rest of chess.
An even worse argument, is asking everybody to throw out 90% of existing endgame theory, because some whiner is too lazy to study what exists now.
wb_munchausen wrote:
There has been some argument that making a stalemate a win for the stalemating side would make some currently drawn positions to be wins, thus lessening the 'draw percentage' that is seen at the highest levels. I thought there was some merit to it, but there was some work done recently and reported on other chess sites that the effect on the overall draw percentage was really quite small. Players tend to change their style of play based on the new rules.
Fewer gambits? Lots of times you can give up a pawn knowing you can draw many endings even down a pawn.
@Warlord1981NL if course its your problem. If you have command of the board and you have not left any legal moves whilst not placing your opponent in check, it shows you have poor positional awareness.
no
Oct 27, 2020
0
#154
Warlord1981NL wrote:
Stalemate is dumb. Should result in a loss for the person who can't move. That one cant move is not the problem of the other.
What would you do in a case of mutual stalemate?
I am going to post some positions and you tell me which stalemate positions should be a win for the stalemating side or a draw:
If you say all should be a win by stalemate, there are some obvious contradictions. Should checkmate even have to be possible for stalemate to be a win? Should the losing side just not be able to make a king move or no moves at all. If the stalemating side couldn't possibly win the game regardless, should it then be a draw. The OP has a valid point (not that I personally agree) but just want to be clarified which stalemates are wins and which aren't.
Warlord1981NL wrote:
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
@Warlord1981NL if course its your problem. If you have command of the board and you have not left any legal moves whilst not placing your opponent in check, it shows you have poor positional awareness.
If you had any positional awareness you wouldn't be in a position where your only hope is a stalemate in the first place...
This is the flawed argument right there, assuming the stalemating side was the one winning. In position #2 above, white's best move is stalemate, but does that mean white should win that game? Of course not, he has no material, so the best he could achieve is a draw anyway, why should he be given a win when he has no winning moves?
Absolutely not. Stalemate is a crucial drawing rule of chess. If it were removed, it would change the game entirely and mess up the originality of chess endings. Stalemate must be in force as a drawing possibility
@170, the side who has to move would lose, just as the side who checkmates wins, even if his opponent was one move away from checkmating him, but that is not the main issue with stalemate not being a draw. The main issue is the contradictions is produces in terms of insufficient mating material, checkmate capability, obligations to make legal moves, and the rules of the game would end up circular: "If checkmate is no longer possible, stalemate would not be a win because both sides have no obligation to make anymore legal moves anyway, so it doesn't matter that he can't move", but..."If stalemate is a win, then checkmate does not need to be possible in the first place because stalemate is another way to win other than checkmate, so both sides do have to continue to make legal moves in insufficient positions"..etc and so on.
@warlord1981NL that's a flawed argument. We aren't discussing how good or bad a player is, you said if your opponent can't move it isn't your problem, I've explained to you why it is your problem.
get rid of stalemate and en passant. it’s plonk like these that give chess a bad name.
What’s lacking on your part is why... why is the piece pin rule released when the pinned piece supports a checking piece? Why are en passant, castling and stalemate absolutely critical to what makes chess so sublime? I can teach you, but the person who acquires this knowledge must have a higher level of understanding/