Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever - Chess Forums - Page 2

Pashak1989

Aug 28, 2017

0

#21

Yes, that should be legal!

If you are dumb enough to not notice that you are putting your king in a threatened square you deserve to pay for it.

At some clubs they actually legalized this move when playing Blitz or bullet.

Pashak1989

Aug 28, 2017

0

#22

Optimissed escribió:

<<Read again, I never said that a player should be declared the winner because he has more pieces, I said that he should be declared the winner because he would kill the opponent's king in the next move.>>

And I told you why such an idea is daft. The game cannot get that far. Simple as that.

The game should end when a king is killed. Imagine how satisfying would it be to see how your pieces kill the king.

Rasta_Jay

Aug 28, 2017

0

#23

IN some clubs they have actually legalized this move when playing blitz or bullet.. You must be trolling.

In blitz/bullet if you put your king in check/don't block the check, you lose the game. standard in all clubs

Nadia-Hovadova

Aug 28, 2017

0

#24

checkmate wins not stalemate, the pieces are not alive so you can't kill them, put a leash on your imagination man.

Pashak1989

Aug 28, 2017

0

#25

Oh Dear, why some of you lack basic common sense?

When I say "Kill" I mean capture the piece. You really felt smart by telling me that the pieces are not alive? Oh Gosh!

Nadia-Hovadova

Aug 28, 2017

0

#26

that was the thickest comment ever!

yep, floating-duck was bang on about you not quite being chimp level.

Nadia-Hovadova

Aug 28, 2017

0

#27

anyway just play friendly games away from the Internet and when you blunder into a stalemate just tell your opponent you won and leg it.

Pashak1989

Aug 28, 2017

0

#28

Nadia-Hovadova escribió:

that was the thickest comment ever!

yep, floating-duck was bang on about you not quite being chimp level.

It is your second day here but you know what that twerp was babbling 3 months ago. Interesting...

Pashak1989

Aug 28, 2017

0

#29

Optimissed escribió:

I think Pashak is sexist. He's using a deflection strategy to make us think he's only concerned about our lack of marbles.

LOL!! I was about to simply ignore you, but I am actually curious about how far your stupidity can go.

Please tell me, why do you consider me a sexist?

Pashak1989

Aug 28, 2017

0

#30

You wish it is a draw. Your "sexist" comment was the most ridiculous blunder I have seen in a long time. You already lost this boy.

adumbrate

Aug 28, 2017

0

#31

It is simply to make the game more complicated, and give the losing side hope. Because without hope he has nothing.

FM_Checkmate

Aug 28, 2017

0

#32

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 like this theory... but you don't want to leave the king nowhere to go, you want to mate him.

Floating-Duck

Aug 28, 2017

0

#33

It wasn't months ago

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/are-there-any-animals-e-g-chimps-that-can-learn-to-make-chess-moves

Floating-Duck

Aug 28, 2017

0

#34

Mickynj....you should follow the link in post 40 and read my comment there it explains everything you need to know about the op

varelse1

Aug 28, 2017

0

#35

Stalemate is at the very core of 99% of endgame theory.

And those of us who have taken the time to learn that theory, are not about to learn it all over again, because somebody was too lazy, to pickup a beginners chessbook.

pjr2468

Aug 28, 2017

0

#36

I don't think it would be down to anyone coming up with the stalemate rule for the sake of it. It, simply put, comes down to the position of a players pieces to ensure that the game can't be lost

LouStule

Aug 28, 2017

0

#37

Stalemate is not a rule...it is a condition.

RAIF999

Aug 28, 2017

0

#38

If stalemate was not there, you would lose as soon as you made a mistake

RAIF999

Aug 28, 2017

0

#39

Also if what you are saying is true, one more move needs to be made after checkmate, to capture king.

Kingpatzer

Aug 28, 2017

0

#40

Pashak1989 wrote:

Optimissed escribió:

<<Why is it considered a draw if the king will be brutally destroyed in the next move?>>

Basically because the next move never happens. The game can't get that far if one of the players has no legal moves. Declaring that the player with more pieces is the winner is just as stupid as giving extra points for more material at the end of the game. The game is about killing the opponent's king and not about how many foot-soldiers are left. The spirit of the game was, historically, all about sacrificing one's army to win the king.

Read again, I never said that a player should be declared the winner because he has more pieces, I said that he should be declared the winner because he would kill the opponent's king in the next move.

But if I have no legal moves, we can't GET to the next move without making a move which is not allowed by the rules of the game.