Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever
Sort:
Can I guess you lost a game to stalemate and you reflect thinking why they have this rule well then there is no such thing as a check if you can attack the king you have to react to the check so you also saying check is the most senseless thing in chess ever
I agree stalemate should be a draw, what are you saying? I agree if you don't check the king you shouldn't win, end of story.
Thank you
BobbyPhisher960 wrote:
FBloggs, since Pashak is a very intelligent person, I doubt that he was serious with this post. Maybe he was just trolling.
Maybe but it doesn't matter. I read at least part of his initial post when I first posted here about a year ago but my comments were in response to the current debate at the time, not his initial post. Just as my above comment was in response to the current debate.
FBloggs please unblock. E
Me
It has been so long
ilovesmetuna wrote:
well, to sum up this latest debate, the patzers reckon you should get points for being a thicko and running into a stalemate. typical!!!!!!!!
That about sums it up. 
MintWarrior wrote:
FBloggs please unblock. E
Okay, okay.
Aug 31, 2018
0
#410
Lorgish wrote:
Pashak was actually serious.
He believes trolling is basically to be punishable by death.
Chess.com membership would drop by 70%!
Agreed or else some epic games could have sucked
MintWarrior wrote:
Can I guess you lost a game to stalemate and you reflect thinking why they have this rule well then there is no such thing as a check if you can attack the king you have to react to the check so you also saying check is the most senseless thing in chess ever
To lose a game to stalemate wouldn't he have to be over 200 years old? He's remarkably well spoken and sharp for such an advanced age.
Lbjon wrote:
Stalemate keeps hope alive in the game ...
Well said.
As i said, if stalemate is illogical, then en passant better be removed to. Its basically a pawn saying to another pawn "No, i wanted you to move only one square so thats what you are doing!"
Sep 3, 2018
0
#416
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.
Even here? White to move.
Or here
Sep 16, 2018
0
#419
kennet_eriksson escribió:
Stalemate is a draw only because the rules states it as such. The rules could be changed to what GM Torre suggested. If it is desirable or not is a personal preference. I tend to see the stalemated side as helpless, unable to respond.
Example 1 and 2 in #299, I'm OK with a 3 points wins for the weaker side. 341 is a nice 3 points win. 342 and 343 are also worth 3 points as I see it. 377 paradox: The material is insufficient for a mate but not for a stalemate, 3 points for the stronger side, 1 for the weaker. No paradox if the rules were changed.
That's a very poor view on how stalemate works, though. The objective of chess is simple. Checkmate the opponent. You should not be considered a victor if you literally fail to accomplish this, regardless of how badly beat up the opponent is. This also reflects a lot on how real wars work. The U.S.A lost less casualties than Vietnam during the war. Did we accomplish our purpose with the war? No. Did we win the war? No. Would historians ever say we won the war? Very few of them. Are too cowardly to admit this? Absolutely. But the catch is, this happens in wars all the time: one side may not be able to fend off the other side permanently at all, but if the other side cannot take over the other side, then at no point in time are they winning the war. The same is true of chess. Of course, chess is a bit different in that it is turn-based, but the concept is equivalent.
Sep 16, 2018
0
#420
kennet_eriksson escribió:
I will repeat (for the benefit of new readers) the suggestion of GM Torre for a new points score in chess: 4 points for a win, 3 if you stalemate your opponent, 2 for a draw, 1 if you are stalemated and 0 for a loss. This would of course require a rule change. I wIf it is the responsibility of the player to avoid stalemating his opponent, wouldn't it be the responsibility of black in #407 and #408 to avoid getting stalemated in those situations? Or do I misunderstand something?
You could also ask yourself: Does black deserve a draw in those positions? If white can take advantage of such sloppy play by black then I do think white deserves the 3 points for stalemating black. Black would get 1 point for avoiding getting mated as oill use this point system in my reasoning.
I am a little curious as to posts like #407 and #408. f the point system above.
The point system above gives a more fine graded point system to chess. Smaller differences in playing strengths would be visible in tournaments.
I don't think the theory of endgames would change by such a point system. The only change would be that the point scored would change. Saving yourself to a stalemate would get you 1/4 of the available points, (instead of 1/2 as it is now) which still is better than 0.
As I don't think it is possible to resolve this by establishing axioms and reason from there, it is up to the preference of each person in this matter. Personally I think the above mentioned point system would be good. I also want to hear what other readers of this thread think of the above point system. What's good about it? What's bad about it?
"If it is the responsibility of the player to avoid stalemating his opponent, wouldn't it be the responsibility of black in #407 and #408 to avoid getting stalemated in those situations? Or do I misunderstand something?"
Yes, you are misunderstanding something: the fact that the purpose of chess is to checkmate the opponent AND nothing else. It is not the player's responsibility to avoid getting stalemated because getting stalemated is a prevention of checkmate, which prevents your opponent from achieving their objective, and hence, from being a victor. If you cannot win the game, but your opponent cannot either, then there is no reason the opponent should be treated as though they are the victors. If you want to create a game with a different set of rules in which the material is gauged by a scoring system to determine a winner, or to create a game with a set of rules such that the opponent must be unable to make legal moves to be a victor, then you can do that, but whatever game you create will no longer be chess, because you have changed the very objective of the game.
"You could also ask yourself: Does black deserve a draw in those positions? If white can take advantage of such sloppy play by black then I do think white deserves the 3 points for stalemating black. Black would get 1 point for avoiding getting mated as of the point system above."
By that argument, the game should end whenever the player makes a mistake. If Black achieves getting stalemated, all they did was a perform a come-back against White despite White having the upper hand, much in the same way that Black losing the Queen early on during the game for poor play does not punish him in terms of score as Black can always make a come-back and even win. It is the fault of White for not achieving checkmate, not the fault of Black for preventing it. They are supposed to prevent it in the first place, and if they do that even at a disadvantage, then that actually deserves even more credit, because in principle, it requires more effort and skill to force a stalemate when at significant disadvantage than it would if the game were even or if you were at an advanatage. If you are able to come back against your opponent who has an advantage, the credit goes to you, not your opponent. Under that general principle, of which stalemate is a special categorical case, such a notion you present makes no sense whatsoever. Again, you can change the principles and the objectives, but at that point, you are no longer talking about chess, making your comments rather irrelevant.
"The point system above gives a more fine graded point system to chess. Smaller differences in playing strengths would be visible in tournaments."
The scoring system is not exactly there to reflect on the strengths, though. And the strength of a player cannot simply be measured by a combination of scores from games, anyway. That's oversimplifying the human character of a player and treating the player like a robot.