Pashak1989 wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED]
NOO!!!!!
Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever
Sort:
Sep 18, 2017
0
#283
kinglysack wrote:
Leaving your opponent with no room to do anything is an essential tactic and a basic way to win in every single sport/game/war, except chess. Somehow, you get rewarded if you get into that situation. BUT, whether or not you like the rule it's incredibly simple to play around, simply leave them with a little room in order to mate on the next move. And, at the beginning of this thread, people were saying that if stalemate isn't a rule, that you should be able to move your king into check. As it stands now, moving your king into check is an immediate loss of the game. Hikaru Nakamura has an example of this which most of you probably know where he underpromotes in a very fast endgame in order to confuse his opponent and it works, cause the other GM made an "illegal" (game losing) move. Somehow, you lose if you do that while other legal moves are available, but if you don't have other options other than killing yourself, you get a draw. Lame.
True in blitz, not regular games. Any illegal move in blitz is a loss.
Chse0c escribió:
Well, you know, these are the rules of the game. If you don't like the rules then find a game that suits your preferences better.
For example, in football there is the 'offside rule', footballers have to accept this rule without complaining too much.
As for cricket, well it would be just too difficult to try to explain.
Offside is also a very stupid rule that just prevents way more exciting games.
Oct 2, 2017
0
#286
What about this endgame?
White has just Stalemated black. Should white be given the WIN for this game. He cannot win. The best he can do is draw. This is the best example. If u say: But the black king will be captured on the next move by the white king.. well, what about this position:
Black cannot move AT ALL, so his king couldn't be captured on the next move because he can't even make a move period. It has to be a draw. What about this endgame?
If white had promoted to a queen, black could have played Rc4+, forcing a stalemate. After C8=Rook, there's no stalemate, and white forces a win. Stalemate is a drawing tactic in endgames and needs ot be a draw.
Diagram 2 is BS, why should we even discuss a position that have never ever happened and will never ever happen?
If a position like that happened in real life, the player with the black pieces should be killed immediately.
Oct 2, 2017
0
#288
Many things have been written about stalemate, but at this point none of them is original or interesting. Let's move to a better, more interesting topic such as "What would Bobby Fischer think about rematches when the opponent let the time run out in the first game?"
Oct 2, 2017
0
#289
mickynj wrote:
"The objective of the game is to capture/kill the enemy's king. "
When you start out with such a ridiculous misunderstanding, everything else follows logically, I guess. The object of the game is to capture the enemy king through a sequence of legal moves. You can't win a game by deciding that your rook can jump like a knight, and you can't win a game by clumsily stalemating your opponent.
I completely agree.
Oct 2, 2017
0
#290
Pashak1989 wrote:
Diagram 2 is BS, why should we even discuss a position that have never ever happened and will never ever happen?
If a position like that happened in real life, the player with the black pieces should be killed immediately.
The point I'm making is that just because someone stalemated their opponent doesn't meant they should win. Both positions 1 and 2 prove that.
mickynj escribió:
"The objective of the game is to capture/kill the enemy's king. "
When you start out with such a ridiculous misunderstanding, everything else follows logically, I guess. The object of the game is to capture the enemy king through a sequence of legal moves. You can't win a game by deciding that your rook can jump like a knight, and you can't win a game by clumsily stalemating your opponent.
Oh Dear, and you talk about ridiculous misunderstanding? The irony is really strong here.
Oct 2, 2017
0
#292
Two ways to look at this:
1. If you dont know enough to avoid stalemate, your opponent deserves the half point.
2. If your opponent is smart enough to steer a game into stalemate, they deserve the half point.
Oct 2, 2017
0
#293
FishEyedFools wrote:
Two ways to look at this:
1. If you dont know enough to avoid stalemate, your opponent deserves the half point.
2. If your opponent is smart enough to steer a game into stalemate, they deserve the half point.
Exactly. If someone doesn't know how to mate with 2 queens and stalemates, they shouldn't win. Also, stalemate is a tactic used to draw endgames, so it must be a draw!
EndgameStudy wrote:
FishEyedFools wrote:
Two ways to look at this:
1. If you dont know enough to avoid stalemate, your opponent deserves the half point.
2. If your opponent is smart enough to steer a game into stalemate, they deserve the half point.
Exactly. If someone doesn't know how to mate with 2 queens and stalemates, they shouldn't win. Also, stalemate is a tactic used to draw endgames, so it must be a draw!
Exactly. For example, in the following puzzle:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/more-puzzles/puzzle-all-for-one-and-one-for-all
There is beauty in such tactics, just as there are in checkmating tactics.
Pashak1989 wrote:
I agree with you.... I am about to win when I lose
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.
Oct 3, 2017
0
#296
AviaSharma wrote:
Pashak1989 wrote:
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.
I agree with you.... I am about to win when I lose
That's so wrong lol. If u don't understand how to force mate, u shouldn't win. Winning means being able to attack the king WHILE trapping it at the same time. U have to do both. Also, not all stalemate positions result in the king being able to be captured next move. there are stalemates where one side CAN'T MOVE AT ALL-NO SPACE. Stalemate is a draw.
Oct 3, 2017
0
#297
Pashak1989 wrote:
Diagram 2 is BS, why should we even discuss a position that have never ever happened and will never ever happen?
If a position like that happened in real life, the player with the black pieces should be killed immediately.
Why consider this position? Because the rules of chess have to take ALL Possibilities into account! Rarity of a position is completely irrelevant to the rules of the game. U said stalemate should be a win because the king will be captured on the next move. Here's a position where it's stalemate but the king CANNOT be captured on the next move. It doesn't matter if it's likely to occur or not. The rules have to consider it. What about the 1st endgames? U can say: the king will take the king on the next move, but a king is not allowed to check another king. So that argument would be invalid also.
Oct 3, 2017
0
#298
Why the haters? This is just somebody trying to state their opinion! And you have absolutely no respect for that! I am not saying that critique is bad, just do in a more disciplined way, not "That's a dumb idea" or "It doesn't make sense."
Oct 3, 2017
0
#299
I think what Pashak1989 means is that stalemate should be a win for the side that can still make a move. If the king is not in check, then it is a draw. And if there is a mutual stalemate (Which is possible), then it is also a draw. If the king is not in check but any legal move loses the king, then it is a loss for the stalemated side.
Oct 4, 2017
0
#300
Ur saying that the side who cannot make a move at all loses? That makes more sense, but it shouldn't win the game. U have to BOTH trap the king, AND check it. U can't just trap it. Also, in those mutual stalemates, the last player to move would win, but if both sides are stalemating, how can u say 1 side won? The main problem with stalemate is that the king is NOT ALLOWED to move into check. Therefore, it is invalid to say that the king could move to a square, and be captured, if the king isn't permitted to make that move. If the king was able to move into check, then u could make stalemate a win. Otherwise, u'd be violating the basic rules in letting the king move into check. Basically, Stalemate is a draw because the game can't CONTINUE, because the player can't move. THAT'S the reason. It's more of a practical rule in that sense, but that's besides the point. U have to attack the king, not just trap all his pieces!
We still kick it, but he salty to this day about it. hahaha ill gotten gains...that's a good one.