Stalemate is logical. Period. End of discussion (I wish).
Those who say stalemate doesn't make sense probably had a recent game where stalemate occurred when they should have won the game. That's called sour grapes. If you don't want stalemate to occur, make better moves.
Stalemate is logical. Period. End of discussion (I wish).
Those who say stalemate doesn't make sense probably had a recent game where stalemate occurred when they should have won the game. That's called sour grapes. If you don't want stalemate to occur, make better moves.
Nice logic I like it
Again hi
Why always all sending links
Last time somebody send link
See the problem with this post is ur asking people to not use ad-hominum, but to use logic, but ur not using logic urself.
If u have the opponent king surrounded, and he has no pieces and u have an overwhelming army, then it should be a piece of cake for u to mate. It's inexcusable to stalemate in 99% of stalemates. Its almost always ur fault, not a fault of the system.
That's why people will use ad-hominums like u mentioned, because this topic is not only redundant, but stupid.
you need avoid stalmate by play good move, stalmate is disgusting rule,but it exist,so you have to avoid it,that's all
I kind of relate the rule of stalemate to that Fallout 4 Mission with Nick where you go to Eddie Winter's bunker. He's trapped, he's alone, he's a ghoul, but he's alive
I kind of relate the rule of stalemate to that Fallout 4 Mission with Nick where you go to Eddie Winter's bunker. He's trapped, he's alone, he's a ghoul, but he's alive
I view it differently. I use Milo powder as an analogy.
I notice that when I do not stir my Milo properly, there will always be undissolved Milo being coated around a dark layer of moistened Milo which somehow prevents the remaining undissolved Milo (which it covers completely) from further dissolving with the water, akin to how a layer of aluminium oxide prevents further reaction of the aluminium beneath it.
The undissolved Milo powder is in "stalemate". It prefers to not move out and get dissolved.
Stalemate is a rule where the king cannot move but it is not being attacked by any piece.
Reading through the responses attempting to make sense of stalemate just reiterate to me that it truly is illogical. Chess is a very old game, but that doesn't mean every rule is perfect
For the most part there seems to be two ways people are looking at this. Either making real life parallels to battle, or "this is a game; it's a rule, deal with it". But whichever way you chose to look at stalemates, it still doesn't make sense. That's obvious when comparing it to battle; you put your opponent in a position where they cannot do anything without being killed/captured. But even when you ignore all that and just think about it as a game, well who wins games? Simply put, the side who plays better. A stalemate can only occur when one person has outplayed the other to the point where they are trapped. Calling that a draw is like giving out a participation trophy. Hey you literally have no chance to win, but here's 0.5 anyway, congrats!
Comment #37 in this thread nicely exemplifies how illogical it is. White is in a position where they can make one move, and black would have nowhere to go. Yet because of an archaic rule you must instead make more moves to achieve the same result (a position where the king cannot escape capture with any move)
If the game of chess were to have been invented right now with the exact same rules - assuming a high level of popularity and thus plenty of online discussion - no one would be defending the stalemate rule, as the only justifiable response now is "that's just how it's been for ages"
Stalemate is some great rule, it makes chess harder
The worst rule in chess is not stalemate because it always leaves some chances to the weakest side to finish the game by a draw. The strongest side shouldn't relax until they will win their opponent and, it can make this game a little bit more restless but still fun to play.
The worst rule in chess is en passant, and I don't get why so many people defend it. It is unnatural, and I still can't accept it as a player, even though I am familiar with chess for more than six years.
This rule is just useless, it can destroy any position with quick pawn exchanges.
Consider the offside rule in soccer. You aren't allowed to pass the ball to a player who has a clean shot on the goal. You can only pass it to someone who still has a defender between him and the goal.
Is that "logical"? Or is it just part of the rules that keep the the game fresh, by preventing "camping"?
The worst rule in chess is en passant, and I don't get why so many people defend it. It is unnatural, and I still can't accept it as a player, even though I am familiar with chess for more than six years.
This rule is just useless, it can destroy any position with quick pawn exchanges.
If en passent is unnatural, then so is the Pawn's two-step privilege. You can't have one without the other.
Ugh you play bad, mlchesssml. Verry bad
WHY ARE YOU TELLING HIM LIKE THIS HE WILL IMPROVE