Stalemate is not logical to me
Sort:
The only difference between checkmate and stalemate is that checkmate is when the king cannot go anywhere but is also checked at the same time.
Well also that one is a win, and the other one isn’t!
mlchessml wrote:
First of all, I would like you to not use ad hominem attacks on me, like for example statement: "You must be frustrated with stalemates, because of your bad play", cause it is not true.
I have played some great puzzles involving stalemates and I loved it.
But, stalemate is not logical.
Checkmate is a state, when opponents king cant move anywhere without being captured/killed in the next move.
Isnt the stalemate basicaly the same thing?
Of course, if king cannot move at all, that is OK. That is a draw.
Also, if opponents king can only move next to other king, I think that is also OK to be a draw, although, that would also be ilogical.
But I dont understand who made this rule that stalemate is a draw and why. You have surrounded enemy king and whatever move he makes next, he will be killed (same as in checkmate). That does not look like a draw to me.
I totally agree. The kind of stalemate that results in a draw because the opponent's king can't move is absolutely against common sense and the idea of winning. The king is surrounded, can't move, no one comes to his rescue because his army is captured or dead, he has no resources, he will soon die of starving so the battle is lost no matter what. But it's not... I get that the rules are rules but some rules simply don't make sense.
PolonesTS wrote:
I totally agree. The kind of stalemate that results in a draw because the opponent's king can't move is absolutely against common sense and the idea of winning.
It's great that you agree with that 8 year old post.
Also, it presumably has nothing to do with what happened in your recent daily game.
Tails204 wrote:
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.
They should've made it so a pawn cannot jump through a guarded square, to be consistent with castling. Either that or make all pieces able to capture a pawn by en passant. The rule as it stands makes some sense but it is a bit arbitrary.
magipi wrote:
PolonesTS wrote:
I totally agree. The kind of stalemate that results in a draw because the opponent's king can't move is absolutely against common sense and the idea of winning.
It's great that you agree with that 8 year old post.
Also, it presumably has nothing to do with what happened in your recent daily game.
And? What's your point, dude?
PolonesTS wrote:
mlchessml wrote:
First of all, I would like you to not use ad hominem attacks on me, like for example statement: "You must be frustrated with stalemates, because of your bad play", cause it is not true.
I have played some great puzzles involving stalemates and I loved it.
But, stalemate is not logical.
Checkmate is a state, when opponents king cant move anywhere without being captured/killed in the next move.
Isnt the stalemate basicaly the same thing?
Of course, if king cannot move at all, that is OK. That is a draw.
Also, if opponents king can only move next to other king, I think that is also OK to be a draw, although, that would also be ilogical.
But I dont understand who made this rule that stalemate is a draw and why. You have surrounded enemy king and whatever move he makes next, he will be killed (same as in checkmate). That does not look like a draw to me.
I totally agree. The kind of stalemate that results in a draw because the opponent's king can't move is absolutely against common sense and the idea of winning. The king is surrounded, can't move, no one comes to his rescue because his army is captured or dead, he has no resources, he will soon die of starving so the battle is lost no matter what. But it's not... I get that the rules are rules but some rules simply don't make sense.
The purpose of the game is to capture the enemy king. Stalemate, or surrounding the opponents king without capturing him is therefore not a win.
They say chess is modeled after war. So imagine the enemy king surrounded, but not captured. If the enemy king moves, he gets captured. But he doesn't move. So he isn't captured. So the attacking forces go home. There is nothing they can do. If they want to win, they have to capture the king. If they don't, both sides live to fight another day. In other words, a tie. Or stalemate.
Stalemate is one of the most logical rules in chess, because there is no other reasonable alternative. I think the only way it could possibly be improved is in how it's scored. Instead of 1/2-1/2 maybe score it 0-0. Still a tie, but neither side deserving even half a point. It would be as if the game never happened.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
PolonesTS wrote:
mlchessml wrote:
First of all, I would like you to not use ad hominem attacks on me, like for example statement: "You must be frustrated with stalemates, because of your bad play", cause it is not true.
I have played some great puzzles involving stalemates and I loved it.
But, stalemate is not logical.
Checkmate is a state, when opponents king cant move anywhere without being captured/killed in the next move.
Isnt the stalemate basicaly the same thing?
Of course, if king cannot move at all, that is OK. That is a draw.
Also, if opponents king can only move next to other king, I think that is also OK to be a draw, although, that would also be ilogical.
But I dont understand who made this rule that stalemate is a draw and why. You have surrounded enemy king and whatever move he makes next, he will be killed (same as in checkmate). That does not look like a draw to me.
I totally agree. The kind of stalemate that results in a draw because the opponent's king can't move is absolutely against common sense and the idea of winning. The king is surrounded, can't move, no one comes to his rescue because his army is captured or dead, he has no resources, he will soon die of starving so the battle is lost no matter what. But it's not... I get that the rules are rules but some rules simply don't make sense.
The purpose of the game is to capture the enemy king. Stalemate, or surrounding the opponents king without capturing him is therefore not a win.
They say chess is modeled after war. So imagine the enemy king surrounded, but not captured. If the enemy king moves, he gets captured. But he doesn't move. So he isn't captured. So the attacking forces go home. There is nothing they can do. If they want to win, they have to capture the king. If they don't, both sides live to fight another day. In other words, a tie. Or stalemate.
Stalemate is one of the most logical rules in chess, because there is no other reasonable alternative. I think the only way it could possibly be improved is in how it's scored. Instead of 1/2-1/2 maybe score it 0-0. Still a tie, but neither side deserving even half a point. It would be as if the game never happened.
I think what you described is every other draw scenario. Stuff like perpetual check is what feels like stalemate to me, because it is a scenario where both parties can't make real progress. The stalemate defined in chess punishes the player that makes opponent exhaust all moves, which would be a strategic victory in real wars by any measure.
It's ok to acknowledge chess rules are not perfect. The stalemate rule is the way it is because it adds to the gameplay but not because it makes the perfect sense.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
PolonesTS wrote:
mlchessml wrote:
First of all, I would like you to not use ad hominem attacks on me, like for example statement: "You must be frustrated with stalemates, because of your bad play", cause it is not true.
I have played some great puzzles involving stalemates and I loved it.
But, stalemate is not logical.
Checkmate is a state, when opponents king cant move anywhere without being captured/killed in the next move.
Isnt the stalemate basicaly the same thing?
Of course, if king cannot move at all, that is OK. That is a draw.
Also, if opponents king can only move next to other king, I think that is also OK to be a draw, although, that would also be ilogical.
But I dont understand who made this rule that stalemate is a draw and why. You have surrounded enemy king and whatever move he makes next, he will be killed (same as in checkmate). That does not look like a draw to me.
I totally agree. The kind of stalemate that results in a draw because the opponent's king can't move is absolutely against common sense and the idea of winning. The king is surrounded, can't move, no one comes to his rescue because his army is captured or dead, he has no resources, he will soon die of starving so the battle is lost no matter what. But it's not... I get that the rules are rules but some rules simply don't make sense.
The purpose of the game is to capture the enemy king. Stalemate, or surrounding the opponents king without capturing him is therefore not a win.
They say chess is modeled after war. So imagine the enemy king surrounded, but not captured. If the enemy king moves, he gets captured. But he doesn't move. So he isn't captured. So the attacking forces go home. There is nothing they can do. If they want to win, they have to capture the king. If they don't, both sides live to fight another day. In other words, a tie. Or stalemate.
Stalemate is one of the most logical rules in chess, because there is no other reasonable alternative. I think the only way it could possibly be improved is in how it's scored. Instead of 1/2-1/2 maybe score it 0-0. Still a tie, but neither side deserving even half a point. It would be as if the game never happened.
I read yours and many previous explanations but I don't agree. I get that stalemate makes sense when there are 2 kings left or a bishop and a king and so on. If your pieces can't move and your opponent's can, you lose. Maybe that's why it shouldn't be called stalemate. You can change rules and have a "third option", it's just a game and rules were changed before. I'm not saying they should be changed, I just second mlchessml's opinion that this rule does not follow common sense.
PolonesTS wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
PolonesTS wrote:
mlchessml wrote:
First of all, I would like you to not use ad hominem attacks on me, like for example statement: "You must be frustrated with stalemates, because of your bad play", cause it is not true.
I have played some great puzzles involving stalemates and I loved it.
But, stalemate is not logical.
Checkmate is a state, when opponents king cant move anywhere without being captured/killed in the next move.
Isnt the stalemate basicaly the same thing?
Of course, if king cannot move at all, that is OK. That is a draw.
Also, if opponents king can only move next to other king, I think that is also OK to be a draw, although, that would also be ilogical.
But I dont understand who made this rule that stalemate is a draw and why. You have surrounded enemy king and whatever move he makes next, he will be killed (same as in checkmate). That does not look like a draw to me.
I totally agree. The kind of stalemate that results in a draw because the opponent's king can't move is absolutely against common sense and the idea of winning. The king is surrounded, can't move, no one comes to his rescue because his army is captured or dead, he has no resources, he will soon die of starving so the battle is lost no matter what. But it's not... I get that the rules are rules but some rules simply don't make sense.
The purpose of the game is to capture the enemy king. Stalemate, or surrounding the opponents king without capturing him is therefore not a win.
They say chess is modeled after war. So imagine the enemy king surrounded, but not captured. If the enemy king moves, he gets captured. But he doesn't move. So he isn't captured. So the attacking forces go home. There is nothing they can do. If they want to win, they have to capture the king. If they don't, both sides live to fight another day. In other words, a tie. Or stalemate.
Stalemate is one of the most logical rules in chess, because there is no other reasonable alternative. I think the only way it could possibly be improved is in how it's scored. Instead of 1/2-1/2 maybe score it 0-0. Still a tie, but neither side deserving even half a point. It would be as if the game never happened.
I read yours and many previous explanations but I don't agree. I get that stalemate makes sense when there are 2 kings left or a bishop and a king and so on. If your pieces can't move and your opponent's can, you lose. Maybe that's why it shouldn't be called stalemate. You can change rules and have a "third option", it's just a game and rules were changed before. I'm not saying they should be changed, I just second mlchessml's opinion that this rule does not follow common sense.
Then what other option is there? If it's not a tie, what is it? It can't be a win, because the king was not captured. It's not a loss because the other king was not captured either. Other than a tie, what other possible option is there?
lfPatriotGames wrote:
PolonesTS wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
PolonesTS wrote:
mlchessml wrote:
First of all, I would like you to not use ad hominem attacks on me, like for example statement: "You must be frustrated with stalemates, because of your bad play", cause it is not true.
I have played some great puzzles involving stalemates and I loved it.
But, stalemate is not logical.
Checkmate is a state, when opponents king cant move anywhere without being captured/killed in the next move.
Isnt the stalemate basicaly the same thing?
Of course, if king cannot move at all, that is OK. That is a draw.
Also, if opponents king can only move next to other king, I think that is also OK to be a draw, although, that would also be ilogical.
But I dont understand who made this rule that stalemate is a draw and why. You have surrounded enemy king and whatever move he makes next, he will be killed (same as in checkmate). That does not look like a draw to me.
I totally agree. The kind of stalemate that results in a draw because the opponent's king can't move is absolutely against common sense and the idea of winning. The king is surrounded, can't move, no one comes to his rescue because his army is captured or dead, he has no resources, he will soon die of starving so the battle is lost no matter what. But it's not... I get that the rules are rules but some rules simply don't make sense.
The purpose of the game is to capture the enemy king. Stalemate, or surrounding the opponents king without capturing him is therefore not a win.
They say chess is modeled after war. So imagine the enemy king surrounded, but not captured. If the enemy king moves, he gets captured. But he doesn't move. So he isn't captured. So the attacking forces go home. There is nothing they can do. If they want to win, they have to capture the king. If they don't, both sides live to fight another day. In other words, a tie. Or stalemate.
Stalemate is one of the most logical rules in chess, because there is no other reasonable alternative. I think the only way it could possibly be improved is in how it's scored. Instead of 1/2-1/2 maybe score it 0-0. Still a tie, but neither side deserving even half a point. It would be as if the game never happened.
I read yours and many previous explanations but I don't agree. I get that stalemate makes sense when there are 2 kings left or a bishop and a king and so on. If your pieces can't move and your opponent's can, you lose. Maybe that's why it shouldn't be called stalemate. You can change rules and have a "third option", it's just a game and rules were changed before. I'm not saying they should be changed, I just second mlchessml's opinion that this rule does not follow common sense.
Then what other option is there? If it's not a tie, what is it? It can't be a win, because the king was not captured. It's not a loss because the other king was not captured either. Other than a tie, what other possible option is there?
OK, you're right. So it should be a loss then if you can't make a move. Drawing when you have 8 or 10 pieces and your opponent has one doesn't seem fair.
Oct 6, 2022
0
#173
wakuvvaku wrote:
It's ok to acknowledge chess rules are not perfect.
Please acknowledge truth, but not this nonsense.
Chess is perfect!
Pro tip- it’s not about you or what you believe is logical.
Oct 7, 2022
0
#176
What does having an "overwhelming advantage" in material matter? If you have an overwhelming material advantage and the other player checkmates you you still lose. Many of Morphy's games ended that way--he sacked a lot of pieces and mated the opponent with the little material he had left.
If you have 10 pieces surrounding your opponent's lone king and can't checkmate him, the draw by stalemate is your "punishment" for poor play. Just like hanging your queen or not noticing a back-rank mate results in a loss--punishment for poor play.
Saying that the rule is senseless because it does not parallel real-life war is totally ridiculous. How many times in real war do both sides have exactly the same number of exactly the same type of forces? Has any real war been confined to an 8 by 8 square with no movement allowed outside that space? Do the armies in a real war stand by and let the other side make an attack or maneuver and then the other side gives the enemy their turn?
Chess is a great game that has been enjoyed around the world for centuries. The stalemate rule is vital for the "inferior" side in many endgames. Without it players would be much more reluctant to give up a pawn for activity, making the game slower and duller.
mpaetz wrote:
What does having an "overwhelming advantage" in material matter? If you have an overwhelming material advantage and the other player checkmates you you still lose. Many of Morphy's games ended that way--he sacked a lot of pieces and mated the opponent with the little material he had left.
If you have 10 pieces surrounding your opponent's lone king and can't checkmate him, the draw by stalemate is your "punishment" for poor play. Just like hanging your queen or not noticing a back-rank mate results in a loss--punishment for poor play.
Saying that the rule is senseless because it does not parallel real-life war is totally ridiculous. How many times in real war do both sides have exactly the same number of exactly the same type of forces? Has any real war been confined to an 8 by 8 square with no movement allowed outside that space? Do the armies in a real war stand by and let the other side make an attack or maneuver and then the other side gives the enemy their turn?
Chess is a great game that has been enjoyed around the world for centuries. The stalemate rule is vital for the "inferior" side in many endgames. Without it players would be much more reluctant to give up a pawn for activity, making the game slower and duller.
So you are saying it's a rule that punishes the player who does not play around the rule. Of course every rule is like that. We know stalemate rule adds a dynamic to the endgame game for the losing side, which is certainly good and probably the reason it's designed in the game. That's not what OP is arguing about, though (whether this topic is important at all is debatable in itself).
Stalemate in chess is a misnomer because one side can make a move -- only the other side is locked, so it's not a stalemate, by the definition of the word in real life. The winning player is punished because the other player, she/he alone has no moves left, the worst possible position, forced by the winning player. That's why it's not logical. But you can argue that does not matter as long as the game is fun. Both can be valid -- stalemate rule is good for the game despite not being logical.
Oct 7, 2022
0
#178
No. Once you decide that the two players will alternate turns and a stalemate position is reached, it is the stalemated player's turn. As they have no legal moves, the players can sit at the board until the sun burns out, but nothing will ever change. The game is over and the "superior" player has not fulfilled the basic winning criteria--checkmating the opponent. It makes no sense to say "if the superior player could make another move they would win". There are countless positions where a player could win if they could make two moves in a row. Why should this rule be breached only in this one instance?
And you don't have to "play around" the rule if you have a truly overwhelming advantage--it's easy enough to checkmate the opponent in such positions if you watch what you're doing and play carefully. Careless mistakes deserve to be punished.
mpaetz wrote:
No. Once you decide that the two players will alternate turns and a stalemate position is reached, it is the stalemated player's turn. As they have no legal moves, the players can sit at the board until the sun burns out, but nothing will ever change. The game is over and the "superior" player has not fulfilled the basic winning criteria--checkmating the opponent. It makes no sense to say "if the superior player could make another move they would win". There are countless positions where a player could win if they could make two moves in a row. Why should this rule be breached only in this one instance?
And you don't have to "play around" the rule if you have a truly overwhelming advantage--it's easy enough to checkmate the opponent in such positions if you watch what you're doing and play carefully. Careless mistakes deserve to be punished.
When the debate is about whether a rule makes sense, you cannot argue because the rule is the way it is. Which is basically what your first 2 paragraphs in the previous post, and the first paragraph of this post are.
The winning condition could simply be you win if the other player has no legal move the next turn, which would've unified checkmate and stalemate rules and made more 'sense'. But the game would be duller and I would agree with you.
Honestly, both sides of this is right.
Technically, if this was a realistic war game it would be a win due to the king being surrounded.
I've read the book "Art of War by Sun Tzu" and thanks to that book I look at chess logically and say yeah this stalemate is dumb. It's not the IQ of the person but it's their moves.
If you want to explain WHY this is a stalemate PROPERLY it's because in an actual war the king can slip out and say "I'm out" You may have destroyed both an army and economy but not slayed the king because he can come back with reinforcements. That's why it's stalemate because the war will keep going and going until none is left.
It hurts my brain to see people explain chess without logical thought about or explain it like War thunder arcade.
Chess is basically easy mode of hearts of iron 4 if you want a better reference instead of trying to understand what war thunder is.
OK so stalemate is good because I am not? Great logic. You probably think chess=smarts. Keep on with that and leave the thread alone. If I am stupid, why even bother? Is stalemate good or am I just a moron? Pick a topic,
The stalemate rule in its current guise has been in place for 150+ years. OK, you disagree with it but unfortunately for you it is going to remain the status quo so you had better start practicing how to give checkmate instead of throwing away wins and allowing your opponents a draw.
Exactly