"In my view, calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents the ultimate zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken" (GM Kaufman 2009).
Stalemate should be a draw because your opponent forced a position where u can't attack him. U need to trap and kill, not just trap.
Uhhhh....isn't checkmate just trapping the King?
NO because u are ATTACKING the king at the same time.
\
This is a good point. I'm pretty sure I had a stalemate con mi Ruca the other night.
We were both having a conversation where we were disagreeing with each other, (not fighting) but then we ended up passing out together.
I'd consider that a stalemate.
Were just talking about the logic of the rule, not real-life apllications. Stalemate should be a draw because u didn't accomplish the objective of the game, so you shouldn't WIN. Some claim it is a forfeit by the stalemated player cause he can't make a legal move, but not being able to make a move shouldn't be a loss in chess. It's hard to explain in words, but u get the gist, right?
Were just talking about the logic of the rule, not real-life apllications. Stalemate should be a draw because u didn't accomplish the objective of the game, so you shouldn't WIN. Some claim it is a forfeit by the stalemated player cause he can't make a legal move, but not being able to make a move shouldn't be a loss in chess. It's hard to explain in words, but u get the gist, right?
It might be a logical rule, but some people will not respond to logic. Like the guy in the other thread. He has his mind made up and he wont change. You (and I) have our minds made up, and it wont change. If the objective of the argument is to convince the other side, you are in stalemate. Neither side winning, but neither side losing. Ask him which side should forfeit in your situation. I know he would say neither because both sides can keep going, but what if one side cant? What if he, for example, permanently loses his internet connection or something. I wonder if he figures that would mean he forfeits and you win.
The thing is, stalemate being a win IN ITSELF would be logical, but it wouldn't be logical when integrated into the game. People are confusing simple logic with compound logic.
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!
In that diagram not only it should be a loss for black, but the player should be banned from ever playing in chess and should be deported to Samoa or some other island for throwing away an advantage like that.
Having that big advantage and ending up trapping yourself to the point where you can't make any legal moves? Of course it should be a loss!
And how did white lose every single one of his pieces? He must not be that good either LOL
The point is not being able to make a legal move shouldn't be a loss in chess, not because he can't move, but because he wasn't mated. The goal of chess is checkmate, and since the stalemating player failed to do that, why should he win?
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.
Actually, in a mutual stalemate, who ever's move it is would lose because he would lose his king 1st, so it would still be a win for the last player to move.
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.
Actually, in a mutual stalemate, who ever's move it is would lose because he would lose his king 1st, so it would still be a win for the last player to move.
I wonder how many games played on Chess.com for the past few years feature mutual stalemates, excluding those where both parties agree to making moves together to achieve position (i.e. I am interested in unexpected mutual stalemates). If there is even one, the game should receive great recognition.
I'm a bit confused by people saying "lose the king." I have never lost my king because it is the one piece that cannot be captured or lost under any circumstances.
They're saying checkmate is a win because the king will be taken next move, which is true.
I'm a bit confused by people saying "lose the king." I have never lost my king because it is the one piece that cannot be captured or lost under any circumstances.
In real-life battles, often the side whose king (or some leader) surrenders or gets captured by the enemy lines loses the battle.
The same goes for chess, but to simplify things, we just say that the king will get captured next move no matter what, without exactly removing the king from the board.
No. When I get a checkmate, I make sure I smash that king with whatever piece has checkmated it.
What if he grabbed his king and fled the playing room, then jumped into his car and sped away, before u could smash his king?
Then I’d smash his car. Muahahahahaha!!
After all, chess IS life.
Tell me step by step what you would do if your opponent actually did that?
Then I’d smash his car. Muahahahahaha!!
After all, chess IS life.
Tell me step by step what you would do if your opponent actually did that?
He woukdnt make it to his car in the first place.
Heres how it would go down.
My final move would get him in check mate. He’d look up at me already staring at him, ready to grin
He knows what’s next, (I already had a rep on smashing the king as my final move) but he thinks with his pride and attempts to snag his king. Big mistake. I jab him in the throat with one lightning strike motion
As he is gasping for air, holding his throat with both hands, I simply move my piece smoothly and slowly...a most silent smash ever recorded in chess history.
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."
What? I'm not hating him for thinking this. I'm saying it's incorrect reasoning. I'm not trying to put him down. Where did I do that? And if it doesn't make sense, there's nothing wrong with me saying that. If I don't understand something, it's normal to say "that doesn't make sense" or incorrect reasoning..etc. Read some of the other threads on this forum-People saying things like someone should be killed if they play a certain opening? All I said was it doesn't make sense, and it's true, it doesn't. Did nothing wrong here.