Strange no one mentioned it yet : Check + Mate means you give ''CHECK'' and it is ''MATE'', Stale + Mate means you do ''NOTHING'' and it is ''MATE'' so that's a draw. As for the logic behind this rule i believe it is that you must never let your wits and guard down in this game even in the most overwhelming situations for your opponent and that the King is the King and when he is deprived of his army he should have a last ''weapon'', something like a secret passage outside of his burned pallace.
Stalemate is not logical to me
Sort:
Dec 21, 2015
0
#83
When Black snatched White's g-pawn, it is not logical that White should win by grabbing Black's rook. Rather, the stalemate trap enriches the game of chess. White still has a decisive advatage after Kc6.
Dec 21, 2015
0
#84
_Number6_'s point was made eloquently in post #85.
There is injustice in chess. It's possible to be two pieces up and not be able to force a win. That is actually part of what makes the game so compelling. Like life, there are times when material advantages don't matter. There's no need to change the rules regarding draws, or to give more points for a side that has gained material. Such rules would only debase the game.
There's a movement in correspondence chess to allow for different qualities of draws because decisive games are becoming more and more rare. That is misguided. The effect of such a rule will be to discourage creative gambits because the material deficit may not be fatal, but it will cost points.
Leave the scoring of the game the way it is. It's not broken.
If the rules of chess aren't logical to someone, the problem isn't in the rules. PEBCAK.
MikeCrockett wrote:
btw, just to be clear, I didn't shift the goal post. the stronger side is the player who forces his opponent out of the game by denying him the ability to move.
Like this?
_Number_6 wrote:
yes. black could have promoted to a rook and won the full point. instead promotion to the queen cost him the full point but he would still garnish .75 for forcing white out of
the game.
I think such a scoring system more accurately rewards the players for their relative performance.
MikeCrockett wrote:
btw, just to be clear, I didn't shift the goal post. the stronger side is the player who forces his opponent out of the game by denying him the ability to move.
Like this?
Ziryab wrote:
When Black snatched White's g-pawn, it is not logical that White should win by grabbing Black's rook. Rather, the stalemate trap enriches the game of chess. White still has a decisive advatage after Kc6.
g-pawn? Where is said g-pawn?
Not logical doesn't mean untrue,or without value.
@Ziyab - I agree. The stalemate trap is still a legitimate tactic. White should not "win" by grabbing the rook. No one has suggested that. Changing the scoring system won't alter game theory. The only difference with the proposed scoring is that if White should make the mistake of grabbing the rook, he has still sucessfully knocked Black out of the game. For that reason the suggested change to the scoring system is that he gains .75 points and Black only .25 - Black did not play well enough to earn the half point. There are other ways to draw a game and an better player would not be forced into stalemate.
Dec 21, 2015
0
#90
finn416 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
When Black snatched White's g-pawn, it is not logical that White should win by grabbing Black's rook. Rather, the stalemate trap enriches the game of chess. White still has a decisive advatage after Kc6.
g-pawn? Where is said g-pawn?
I meant b-pawn. I flipped the diagram in my head while typing.
Dec 21, 2015
0
#91
MikeCrockett wrote:
@Ziyab - I agree. The stalemate trap is still a legitimate tactic. White should not "win" by grabbing the rook. No one has suggested that.
Actually, that was the rule some places 500 years ago. In other places, stalemating your opponent would be counted as a loss. The rule was all over the place before stalemate became a draw in all countries.
Fractionating certain draws is a bad plan. A draw is 1/2 point whether by repetition, agreement, 50-move rule, or stalemate. That's how it should be.
As a coach, I sometimes would like to give a student zero when QK vs. K ends via the 50-move rule, but the rules of chess are that both players earned 1/2 point.
Yes, and chess clocks were never part of the original game either. Innovation occurs and the game changes. I can respect the traditions of our game but neither I'm I opposed to thinking outside the box. We just share a different opinion about how Stalemate should be scored and you are entitled to yours. :-)
Dec 22, 2015
0
#93
The OP arguements would only make sense if the aim of chess was to win material. It is not. The aim of chess is to checkmate the opponent. If someone has a material advantage and still can not manage to checkmate the king he certainly does not deserve a win.
Dec 22, 2015
0
#94
SmyslovFan wrote:
_Number6_'s point was made eloquently in post #85.
There is injustice in chess. It's possible to be two pieces up and not be able to force a win. That is actually part of what makes the game so compelling. Like life, there are times when material advantages don't matter. There's no need to change the rules regarding draws, or to give more points for a side that has gained material. Such rules would only debase the game.
There's a movement in correspondence chess to allow for different qualities of draws because decisive games are becoming more and more rare. That is misguided. The effect of such a rule will be to discourage creative gambits because the material deficit may not be fatal, but it will cost points.
Leave the scoring of the game the way it is. It's not broken.
If the rules of chess aren't logical to someone, the problem isn't in the rules. PEBCAK.
I am with you. I still can't understand why people think Stalemate doesn't make sense. It's plain and simple!
1) Checkmate - One's King is under attack, about to be taken the following move, and there is no way to escape it. The checkmated player loses.
2) Legal Move - Every time it is your turn, you must make a legal move. PASS is not a legal move
3) To win, you must have your opponent's King under attack such that he can be taken the following move.
Well, if the Black King is not under attack, the King is not in check, and Checkmate is therefore impossible.
Since checkmate is impossible, White has not won. However, Black has no legal move as he can't move his King, and he can't move any other piece (for Example: WKf7, WNg5, WPa4, BPa5, BPa6). So Black has no legal move, and Black's King is not under attack. Since Black can't move, and Black can not have his King taken from the current position, it's a stalemate and a draw. Think of it like a Draw by Repetition. The repeated fact that Black can't move, hence neither side can move since Black can't pass, and so it's a draw!
Also, what's with this bullsh*t about 75/25 for the "stronger side". Which side is stronger? WKf7, WPd2, WPg6, BKh8, BPd3, BPd4, BPd5, BPd6, BPd7. Black is up material and it's his move, so since it's stalemate, he gets the .75 because he's up in material?
Stalemate is a draw because neither side can legally move. The Stalemated side can't legally move because any move he makes puts him in check, and the Opposite side can't move because it will never be he turn since "PASS" is illegal, and therefore it's a draw via a standoff, or "stalemate"!
Also, one last case against the "stronger side" theory, should Black win this because he has more material and is the "stronger" side? Black plays 1...d1=Q??, but Black should get the extra points because he's stronger, right?
Dec 22, 2015
0
#95
i agree it aint logical but the rules are the rules and it makes the game more fun with more twists and swindling abilities. but if stalemate were win then it is the ultimate version of zugzwang
ThrillerFan wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
_Number6_'s point was made eloquently in post #85.
There is injustice in chess. It's possible to be two pieces up and not be able to force a win. That is actually part of what makes the game so compelling. Like life, there are times when material advantages don't matter. There's no need to change the rules regarding draws, or to give more points for a side that has gained material. Such rules would only debase the game.
There's a movement in correspondence chess to allow for different qualities of draws because decisive games are becoming more and more rare. That is misguided. The effect of such a rule will be to discourage creative gambits because the material deficit may not be fatal, but it will cost points.
Leave the scoring of the game the way it is. It's not broken.
If the rules of chess aren't logical to someone, the problem isn't in the rules. PEBCAK.
I am with you. I still can't understand why people think Stalemate doesn't make sense. It's plain and simple!
1) Checkmate - One's King is under attack, about to be taken the following move, and there is no way to escape it. The checkmated player loses.
2) Legal Move - Every time it is your turn, you must make a legal move. PASS is not a legal move
3) To win, you must have your opponent's King under attack such that he can be taken the following move.
Well, if the Black King is not under attack, the King is not in check, and Checkmate is therefore impossible.
Since checkmate is impossible, White has not won. However, Black has no legal move as he can't move his King, and he can't move any other piece (for Example: WKf7, WNg5, WPa4, BPa5, BPa6). So Black has no legal move, and Black's King is not under attack. Since Black can't move, and Black can not have his King taken from the current position, it's a stalemate and a draw. Think of it like a Draw by Repetition. The repeated fact that Black can't move, hence neither side can move since Black can't pass, and so it's a draw!
Also, what's with this bullsh*t about 75/25 for the "stronger side". Which side is stronger? WKf7, WPd2, WPg6, BKh8, BPd3, BPd4, BPd5, BPd6, BPd7. Black is up material and it's his move, so since it's stalemate, he gets the .75 because he's up in material?
Stalemate is a draw because neither side can legally move. The Stalemated side can't legally move because any move he makes puts him in check, and the Opposite side can't move because it will never be he turn since "PASS" is illegal, and therefore it's a draw via a standoff, or "stalemate"!
Also, one last case against the "stronger side" theory, should Black win this because he has more material and is the "stronger" side? Black plays 1...d1=Q??, but Black should get the extra points because he's stronger, right?
In the diagram, if 1...d1=Q?? then 2.Nf7#. 1-0.
Also, what is this nonsense WKf7? The move would be 1.Kf7. Also, BPa6? Correction:1...a6.
jLanfranco wrote:
In checkmate, the King is being attacked and any move he makes will still result in him being attacked. The key thing is that he is being directly attacked.
In stalemate, the King is not being attacked. So he is not in immediate danger. Yes, if the game were to persist, then he would move into danger. But, the point is that he is currently not being attacked.
Essentially, you cannot commit suicide in chess. Since the rules of chess do not allow you to commit suicide, then the game MUST end in a draw.
who is that in your avatar?
Jan 24, 2021
0
#99
Ichigo53 wrote:
The people who don't want stalemate gone are freaking losers who are scared of losing 9 points
Do you actually play chess? You don’t seem to know much about it.
Sometimes positions allow a player to force a stalmate. I remember one draw i had against a stronger player than me where i sacked my r for p which also checked and forced rxr which resulted in a forced stalemate. I think for most players the longer they play the less they create a stalemate when they have a matieral advantage.