If stalemate was a win for the stalemater, I think White would be the main beneficiary. Maybe it would make chess terminally unbalanced at the top levels. Rational consideration of this idea would be welcomed... 
Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever
Sort:
Sep 4, 2017
0
#203
UthorPendragon escribió:
Of course it wouldn't be chess in it's current form. That's the point of changing rules!
Like:
Switching the starting placement of the King and Queen to put them on the same file.
And
Pawn Rule Changes
1. 2 squares on 1st move
2. En passant
3. Pawn promotion (this rule has changed as recently as Post Staunton)
Bishops
1. From 2 spaces to the length of the board
Queen
1. From 1 space to the length of the entire board
King and Rook
1. Castling
Stalemate-5 variations (with only 1 logical one)
Etceterra
No, that isn't the point of changing the rules. The point of changing the rules of a game isn't to create entirely different, incompatible game, but merely to improve it, which your propositions fail to do.
Sep 4, 2017
0
#204
Ashvapathi escribió:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Ashvapathi wrote:
Totally agreed, stalemate is a stupid rule. It always was. I mean, stalemate is the ultimate zugzwang. Anyway, the word stalemate itself shows that it was considered a mate at some point and slowly downgraded into a draw.
@batgirl has posted on this an linked to an article on it. If you read through, you'll see it has been different results at different times. There was no slow degradation, just evolution.
I meant to say that the word stalemate itself shows that it was considered a mate but of a stale kind and therefore a dishonourable way of winning (I don't know why). Therefore, it was downgraded from a mate to a draw. But I think it does not make any sense because objectivity speaking one side has already lost because they have no option but to get checkmated in the next move.
This argument is flawed. By your definition, a person who has a better position and more and better pieces should by default win the game regardless of whether it is the endgame or not. What you're proposing is that if my opponent blunders and loses his Queen in the middle of the game without any good exchange, then he should lose the game automatically because the game is theoretically lost. Which is incredibly stupid. Chess couldn't ever actually be played, since by your argument White wins by default at the very moment the game starts. A ball of nonsense.
Sep 4, 2017
0
#205
Pashak1989 escribió:
Pulpofeira escribió:
Ashvapathi escribió:
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.
This false. Stalemates in endings have been discovered via theoretical study and with a lot of mathematics and logic involved. You've never played at a national or international tournament though, so of course you think it takes horrible play. Playing at your level can be done with horrible play easily.
Also, stalemate is the optimal position that can be obtained when in a losing position.
Sep 4, 2017
0
#206
The doubling cube idea makes sense in backgammon where there's a true element of uncontrolled risk involved. In chess, it doesn't make much sense at all. And besides, we all love it when some great master blunders a won game away. It makes the rest of us feel like we could possibly play as well as GM at some point.
So the King and Pawn vs King endgame wouldn't change at all. The lonely King would fight to make 1/4 of a point EXACTLY the same way he fights to make a 1/2 point. There would be no HUGE CHANGES in Chess, destroying the game completely like a bunch of people paranoidly talk about on these forums.
Sep 4, 2017
0
#208
Except for the killing of gambit play as previously discussed, changing the point distribution in favor of the stalemater is the least change. Of course what about the(admittedly rare) case where the stalemater has less material? Do you want to reward the person with less material who couldn't win? What about that deserves more points?
Then the argument that all these people (who love draws evidently) would finally make some sense. If the person with more material somehow plays so poorly that they can't move their extra material or their king they would only get 1/4 of a point. And I would argue in that extremely rare case the person with less material would deserve the 3/4 of a point!
and now we speaking of stalemate
[COMMENT DELETED]
Can anyone tell me what would have happened in the 2016 World Championship if the stalemate points were 3/4 -1/4 vs 1/2-1/2? If there was a game that ended (or could have ended) in King and Pawn vs King that would have broke the tie.
[COMMENT DELETED]
MindControl116 escribió:
Pashak1989 escribió:
Pulpofeira escribió:
Ashvapathi escribió:
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.
This false. Stalemates in endings have been discovered via theoretical study and with a lot of mathematics and logic involved. You've never played at a national or international tournament though, so of course you think it takes horrible play. Playing at your level can be done with horrible play easily.
Also, stalemate is the optimal position that can be obtained when in a losing position.
Playing at my level? LMAO! Dude, I have a higher rating than you.
KassySC escribió:
Pashak1989 wrote:
Pulpofeira escribió:
Ashvapathi escribió:
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.
If you are in a position where your last hope is a stalemate then first of all you did everything except "good play".
And secondly, even if you make the best moves in that position, unless your opponent fails big time, you will lose. To get a stalemate (in your favor) you don't need to do some brilliant moves, you need your opponent to make a huge mistake.
Sep 5, 2017
0
#216
I haven't seen you on the forums before horsepoo? are you new?
Sep 5, 2017
0
#217
'If you are in a position where your last hope is a stalemate then first of all you did everything except "good play".
And secondly, even if you make the best moves in that position, unless your opponent fails big time, you will lose. To get a stalemate (in your favor) you don't need to do some brilliant moves, you need your opponent to make a huge mistake'
If you truly believe that then you need to study the first chapter or two of most any basic endgame text. K+P vs K is dead drawn or dead won the second you enter it. If you know it, you get the correct result(frequently stalemate). If you don't, well then...
KassySC escribió:
'If you are in a position where your last hope is a stalemate then first of all you did everything except "good play".
And secondly, even if you make the best moves in that position, unless your opponent fails big time, you will lose. To get a stalemate (in your favor) you don't need to do some brilliant moves, you need your opponent to make a huge mistake'
If you truly believe that then you need to study the first chapter or two of most any basic endgame text. K+P vs K is dead drawn or dead won the second you enter it. If you know it, you get the correct result(frequently stalemate). If you don't, well then...
You are dead wrong if you think that K+P vs K is a draw in all cases.
It depends a lot on the position of the kings, and in what rank the pawn is.
The thing is that if you are on the defending side, you do not need to do brilliant moves. You basically just need to mantain your own king very close to your opponent's pawn (I mean, if the pawn is at the e rank, obviously you won't be moving your king to the h rank) and hope that your opponent blunders and stalemates you.
In other words, if a checkmate is possible but ends on stalemate, it is because the attacking side [removed -- VP] by not knowing how to move their king, and not because the defending side made amazing moves.
If the pawn is at the last rank and your king (You are the defending side) is in a good position, then it is extremely easy to get the stalemate. Same thing, just corner your king at that is all. The attacking side will either stalemate you or give you the pawn, in both cases it is a draw.
In conclussion, getting a stalemate does not take any special skills.
Sep 5, 2017
0
#219
No where did I say all K+P vs K endings are drawn. In fact I'll just quote myself from the very paragraph you quoted me but apparently did not read:
" K+P vs K is dead drawn or dead won the second you enter it."
As that says, once a K+P vs K ending is reached, if it is a theoretical draw, there is nothing the 'superior' side can do to change that against proper defense. The best he can do it either
1) stalemate
2) give up the pawn leading to K vs K
It is NOT a blunder to stalemate, unless you just prefer to hang your pawn.
I assume you know this. If you don't I refer you to the basic endgame texts again.
If you know and yet proceed to propagate blatantly wrong basic information, then there is really no point in continuing this conversation.
Thank you Batgirl!
In siege warfare, if all the people inside the castle die of starvation, you simply use a ladder, enter the castle and you have won.
No stalemate!
How many draws were there in the last World Championship?
Was the World Championship a big event to most people?
What major television media covered it?
Where was it your local newspaper?
Magazine?
If one infantry soldier and a King both armed with swords forced another King against the back wall of his castle and the King against the wall couldn't move without being run thru by the infantry soldier who should win?
Chess has evolved over time to become a better game and should continue to do so!
Stalemate is stupid, draws are boring and hurt the popularity of the game.
CHESS NEEDS TO EVOLVE!
Stalemate is something we must understand needs to change!
Draws should be few and far between!!!
The only exception should be when only the 2 Kings are left!!!
Chess wasn't designed for people to watch and to create money. Shut up. There is no evolution to be made here.