So then OP, do you think that leaving the king in check should be legal as well? (Like if you leave your king in check your opponent can take it and you lose). I think that this would be the next logical step if stalemate is to be declared a win, because then there would be legal moves but they just lose the game instantly. I do agree that stalemate is not a logical rule whatsoever, and without it the number of positions that are winning would increase dramatically (all K+P endings would be wins if the pawn cannot be captured immediately, positions like R vs B would be wins, K+2N would be forced win, even some positions with K vs K+P can be a win for the "defending" K side). I think that without stalemate chess would be much less interesting because a pawn would be a decisive advantage almost always, and there are a lot of beautiful compositions where the defending side uses stalemate as a way to draw an otherwise lost game. Furthermore, everyone who has spent time learning how to defend positions which end in stalemate will have wasted their time, as well as everyone who has mastered the nuances of certain positions to deliver checkmate instead of stalemate.
Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever
But what about a situation where one side is in stalemate, but the other side doesn't have mate next move, or is even losing if not for the fact that his opponent is in stalemate? For example:
In this situation, black would be winning, if not for the fact that he's in stalemate. Therefore, the draw is a way of rewarding white for somehow managing to get his opponent into a position where he has no move, even though otherwise he would be losing.
Think about it, if you have played so badly that you don't even have any legal moves left, then should it be considered loss or a draw for you? Clearly it's a loss.
To force such a situation takes an accurate play in the endgame more often than not.
To force that situation it takes a horrible play. It is understandable if you stalemated your opponent with just few second left on your clock, but if you had enough time and played so badly that the game ended in a stalemate you should never play chess again in your life.
...A real-life situation that resembles stalemate - that's quite a challenge to find..
Many historians regard the Korean War as having ended in stalemate. Both armies were frozen in position not able to advance or retreat. There has been a cessation of hostilities but no peace agreement.
Think about it, if you have played so badly that you don't even have any legal moves left, then should it be considered loss or a draw for you? Clearly it's a loss.
To force such a situation takes an accurate play in the endgame more often than not.
To force that situation it takes a horrible play. It is understandable if you stalemated your opponent with just few second left on your clock, but if you had enough time and played so badly that the game ended in a stalemate you should never play chess again in your life.
May I introduce you to most of king and pawn endgame theory. There, good play less to stalemate. Atrocious play leads to a loss.
There are a lot of cases in history that resemble stalemate.
Ottomans won the battle of Szigetvar but their losses were so heavy that were forced to abandon their plan of conquering Europe and withdraw from Croatia(I have to say here that 2.300 Croatians bravely defended till the last against 45.000 Ottomans) .Some historians called it "The battle that saved civilisation".
Stalemate in chess is something similar.If your losses are heavy , you can't win the game(for those that see similarities between war and chess).The beauty of the game is that sometimes a pawn is enough(actually just a tempo is enough) and others much bigger material superiority is not enough.
I'm not arguing about the example. It's a rather fascinating and thought provoking one. But wouldn't that be more of a Pyrrhic victory than a so-called ultimate zugzwang?
The story of the Szigetvar Seige reminds me a bit of that of Horatius Cocles at the bridge or even the Battle of Marathon perhaps.
Actually yes I meant Thermopylae....i should have refreshed my mind before posting.... it's all Greek to me anyway.
There are a lot of cases in history that resemble stalemate.
Ottomans won the battle of Szigetvar but their losses were so heavy that were forced to abandon their plan of conquering Europe and withdraw from Croatia(I have to say here that 2.300 Croatians bravely defended till the last against 45.000 Ottomans) .Some historians called it "The battle that saved civilisation".
Stalemate in chess is something similar.If your losses are heavy , you can't win the game(for those that see similarities between war and chess).The beauty of the game is that sometimes a pawn is enough(actually just a tempo is enough) and others much bigger material superiority is not enough.
I'm not arguing about the example. It's a rather fascinating and thought provoking one. But wouldn't that be more of a Pyrrhic victory than a so-called ultimate zugzwang?
The story of the Szigetvar Seige reminds me a bit of that of Horatius Cocles at the bridge or even the Battle of Marathon perhaps.>>>>
It reminds me of the fact that even highly-rated chess players can be fools. Better to think of eliminating stalemate as somewhat equivalent to eliminating the offside rule in football.
I like the examples on this page 11.
I like @Batgirl's remark about them even better!
It looks that the "offside" rule in football is finally the closest that we can come up with.
That little 4-year-old who defeated GM Averbakh! That was something!
Maybe a rematch against Karpov is in the cards...
Are you posting this to show Capablanca made a wrong prediction?
At any rate, Capablanca's idea was just a variation on an old one: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-little-chess-village-part-ii
The objective of the game is to capture/kill the enemy's king. This is why when there is checkmate the game is over, because no matter what is done, the king will be captured in the next move.
Stalemate is a situation where the king is not in check, but regardless of where it moves, he will be captured in the next move. So basically a stalemate is a mate but without a check.
Yet for some reason, instead of the game being over and the person with more pieces is declared winner by stalemate, the game is considered a draw!!!
Why is it considered a draw if the king will be brutally destroyed in the next move?
I do not know who created the chess rules, but that person must have been a really bad player to the point that he decided to invent a stupid rule in order to still have a chance of drawing after all the blunders he made during the game.
It has to do with endgames, but don't feel bad, bad players / stupid people usually don't understand.
At your level all you need to know is don't queen all your pawns and capture all the opponent's pieces. As soon as you're 1 or 2 queens ahead play for mate right away.
Oh, actual history discussion. A better way to deal with troll topics.
batgirl, the reason I posted that is I realized my main issue is with the number of draws that currently occur in chess, especially at the GM level.
2016 World Championship
12 games
10 draws
Capablanca's fear of "death draw" appears to be happening right before our very eyes.
I wish he was here to help me on these forums.
batgirl, the reason I posted that is I realized my main issue is with the number of draws that currently occur in chess, especially at the GM level.
2016 World Championship
12 games
10 draws
Capablanca's fear of "death draw" appears to be happening right before our very eyes.
I wish he was here to help me on these forums.
World championship is different. High stakes both players took few risks. Karjakin in particular played boring crap all match long. For a better look see top tournaments like the Sinquefield cup.
I have started another forum called:
Capablanca's Fear of "Death Draw" is Here
People are starting to propose rule changes so fewer draws will occur.
I think I like variant 5 of Stalemate:
3/4 points
Anyway I think Stalemate has been discussed thoroughly enough here.
I have enjoyed your arguments and logic.
I will be reading and posting on the new forum where people are coming up with some interesting ideas.
Actually, Capablanca's "main motivation" for suggesting a variation wasn't so much remis-tod as the audacity in thinking that chess has reached it's highest point and was played out (himself being the pinnacle, of course).
All this comparing chess to war and saying stalemate should be a draw is illogical avoids the basic logic of stalemate being a draw in the first place.
In chess, you win the game by checkmating the opponent. If the opponent resigns, forfeits, or runs out of time, you also win. That's it. There's no other way to win.
If there is no legal way to checkmate your opponent, then it's a draw. It doesn't matter whether you have two Knights vs a lone king, or a whole army and the position is stalemate.
So, if you don't win, and don't lose, the only remaining option in a zero-sum game is to split the point. The simplest way to split the point is .5-.5. There's no arguing over who had the advantage before the stalemate position was reached, and there's no messy math.
Stalemate equalling a draw is perfectly logical from the perspective of the objective of chess, to kill the opposing king.
stalemate to me resembles when a leader of the army has lost his soldiers and is thrown in jail by the enemy. Checkmate is same situation except the enemy kills the leader. Stalemate should be a loss cuz you are trapped as if you are in jail, but not checkmated since you aren't dead.
The objective of the game is to capture/kill the enemy's king. This is why when there is checkmate the game is over, because no matter what is done, the king will be captured in the next move.
Stalemate is a situation where the king is not in check, but regardless of where it moves, he will be captured in the next move. So basically a stalemate is a mate but without a check.
Yet for some reason, instead of the game being over and the person with more pieces is declared winner by stalemate, the game is considered a draw!!!
Sounds logical. But the problem with your logic is that you're using the wrong definition of checkmate.
Checkmate is not defined by "the king will be captured the next move".
Checkmate is defined by: the king is in check, and is unable to escape this check. This means that checkmate happens when the king is trapped on an attacked square.
In the case of stalemate, the attacking player has trapped the king on a safe square. So there's no win possible, because the king is permanently safe from attack.