Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever

UH>...

1. There IS an objective truth concerning those things. It's called chess theory.

2. Yes, you can from first principles and solely from the purpose of the game conclude that stalemate must be a draw. Again, you can change the purposes of the game, but let me repeat myself: ONCE YOU DO THAT, YOU ARE NO LONGER TALKING ABOUT CHESS. Games are defined by their objectives. However, leaving the purpose unchanged, a.k.a actually talking about chess and not some other you subconsciously seem to prefer, you can only conclude the current way of scoring stalemates and nothing else.

Yes, it is based on the fact that the purpose of the game is to achieve checkmate, and that is the only thing the argument should be based on, from a logical standpoint. Otherwise, the argument simply cannot follow from its premises.

I wouldn't mind it, since it would make using this website a ton more enjoyable.

@MindControl116

If you look at the positions in the posts I mentioned it is the materially stronger player that is stalemated. In my posts I question the purpose of those postings. To me it seems that the posters of those positions have the opinion that it is the responsibility of the materially stronger side to avoid stalemating the opponent but not the responsibility of the materially stronger side to avoid being stalemated. It also seems that the posters of those positions somehow thinks they differ from any other stalemate position, why else post them? The point I tried to make was that there is no difference between one stalemate and another. They are all equal.

Please take a look at those positions and read once again what I wrote.

"And the strength of a player cannot simply be measured by a combination of scores from games, anyway."
Isn't this what a rating system does?

"Yes, you can from first principles and solely from the purpose of the game conclude that stalemate must be a draw."
Please, show me how you do this.

The reality is that stalemate is a special (as you also point out in your post #463) case that needs special rules for evaluating. You cannot derive them from the other rules of chess. The rule that a stalemate is a draw is by some sort of tradition and is no more or no less natural than any other ruling you could imagine.

Just to clarify any confusion: The only rule change I propose is how various endings of a chess game should be awarded. Right now it is 1 point for a win, 0 for a loss and 0.5 for other cases (I believe a tournament judge can award both players a loss, but that is beside this discussion). GM Torre suggested 4 points for a win, 0 for a loss and 2 for a draw (proportionally the same as the ordinary one). Furthermore he suggested that a player that stalemates his opponent is awarded 3 points and the stalemated player 1 point. If someone would keep the ordinary point scores the stalemate points, of course, would change to 3/4 and 1/4 points.

If that change is desirable or not is up to each one to decide. But you cannot maintain that one is more natural than the other.

More clarifications: I never suggested that the pieces remaining when a game is finished are somehow significant. On the contrary, I've written that they are irrelevant.

And please everybody: Read what i write, look at the posts I refer to, don't just imagine something after a quick browse of a few posts.

"If you look at the positions in the posts I mentioned it is the materially stronger player that is stalemated. In my posts I question the purpose of those postings. To me it seems that the posters of those positions have the opinion that it is the responsibility of the materially stronger side to avoid stalemating the opponent but not the responsibility of the materially stronger side to avoid being stalemated."

Then you have not bothered to carefully read what has been stated. It is not the responsibility of any side to avoid getting stalemated, and this is what we stated. I do not understand why you keep fixated on the point of having a responsibility avoid getting stalemated: such a responsibility exists nowhere except in the imagination. The purpose of chess is to avoid getting checkmated and to checkmate, period. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand chess.

"It also seems that the posters of those positions somehow thinks they differ from any other stalemate position, why else post them? The point I tried to make was that there is no difference between one stalemate and another. They are all equal."

This is not what your scoring system suggested. If you are going to intentionally be inconsistent with yourself, then this discussion is pointless.

""And the strength of a player cannot simply be measured by a combination of scores from games, anyway."
Isn't this what a rating system does?"

No, there is only so much a rating system can measure, and what it can and cannot measure depends on what standards are devised for rating systems in the first place. Not all rating systems are created equal, contrary to popular thought, so effectively, what you consider to be a good player can only be determined if you make assumptions and definitions about what you think it means to be a good player AND if everyone else happens to agree with you on statistical representation. That is what rating systems boil down to. Qualities that are inherently constrcuted by human consciousness, such as the quality of being skilled, are by intrinsic nature and definition subjective, even if structurally, we can come to a solid and quasi-rigid agreement that happens to work for us on what it means to be skilled. Regardless, even if you could have an objective system which worked independently of any standards humans can think of, your argument still fails, since ratings do not operate from single-match cases, not even from single tournament cases. A tournament does not measure how a player performs. A statistical collection of tournaments does, but notice how these two things are drastically different.

""Yes, you can from first principles and solely from the purpose of the game conclude that stalemate must be a draw."
Please, show me how you do this."

We have already done this. Again, you're the one who has failed to understand what we are stating. The purpose of chess is tro avoid getting checkmated. Stalemate is a prevention of checkmate on your part against your opponent, because it is a situation in which you or your opponent cannot move while no one is in check, by definition; yet if either of you cannot move, then checkmate is impossible. Your opponent cannot checkmate you. You cannot checkmate your opponent. Hence a draw. It is that simple. Your idea that you cannot conclude this runs on the assumption that the purpose of the game is beyond checkmate or different from checkmate, which it is not. That is a fact. It literally makes no difference whether you cause the stalemate or whether you get into stalemate. If you failed to checkmate an opponent, then there is exactly zero reasons for you to think that you somehow should stand higher than your opponent, when in reality the stalemate puts you on level.

"The reality is that stalemate is a special (as you also point out in your post #463) case that needs special rules for evaluating."

Uh, excuse me, can you stop being a lying piece of crank? Not once in that post did I say special rules are necessary. Let me copy and paste my comment here again.

"

1. There IS an objective truth concerning those things. It's called chess theory.

2. Yes, you can from first principles and solely from the purpose of the game conclude that stalemate must be a draw. Again, you can change the purposes of the game, but let me repeat myself: ONCE YOU DO THAT, YOU ARE NO LONGER TALKING ABOUT CHESS. Games are defined by their objectives. However, leaving the purpose unchanged, a.k.a actually talking about chess and not some other you subconsciously seem to prefer, you can only conclude the current way of scoring stalemates and nothing else."

Let me spell it out for you. What does my last sentence say, in ENGLISH? It says "you can only conclude the current way of scoring stalemates", which is exactly the opposite of saying that you cannot conclude the current way of scoring stalemates, which is what you are arguing. Let me put this in formal logic language: when it is said that B can only be concluded from A, this means A is the only statement which entails B. In other words, B only if A. So try lying again and telling me how I said literally the exact opposite of what I said. Geez.

"You cannot derive them from the other rules of chess."

Yes, we can, and we have. Again, refusing to read the posts with care and lying about what people have stated is not an excuse for denying it.

"The rule that a stalemate is a draw is by some sort of tradition and is no more or no less natural than any other ruling you could imagine."

No, it is, because it is derived from the objective of the game itself. The only reason you claim it is not natural is because as you've demonstrated with your comments, you fail to understand the purpose of chess.

"Just to clarify any confusion: The only rule change I propose is how various endings of a chess game should be awarded. Right now it is 1 point for a win, 0 for a loss and 0.5 for other cases (I believe a tournament judge can award both players a loss, but that is beside this discussion). GM Torre suggested 4 points for a win, 0 for a loss and 2 for a draw (proportionally the same as the ordinary one). Furthermore he suggested that a player that stalemates his opponent is awarded 3 points and the stalemated player 1 point. If someone would keep the ordinary point scores the stalemate points, of course, would change to 3/4 and 1/4 points."

Yes, and what I keep telling you over and over is that this award system suggests that game endings should be evaluated by some objective other than whether checkmate was achieved or not, which they should not, because no such other objective exists in chess. Let me ask you again: how difficult is this to understand? I do not like repeating myself.

"And please everybody: Read what i write, look at the posts I refer to, don't just imagine something after a quick browse of a few posts."

Oh, what a hypocrite. Gimme a damn break. Maybe stop lying next time and I'll take this request seriously. You apparently don't even know what you yourself wrote.

#61, #79, #158, #166, #181, #194, #273, #309, #375 are all posts that state that it is the responsibility of the stronger player to avoid stalemating his opponent.

You misunderstand the points I mention. If you play in a tournament you get 1 point for a win, 0.5 for a draw and 0 for a loss. When all games in a tournament are played the scores are totalled. The player with most points win. That are the points I mean. Of course, if you just play one game they are not interesting. These points are not depending on the pieces remaining on the board after the game ended. Therefore I'm not inconsistent. If you still are unsure of what I mean please state what you are unsure about and I will try to explain.

I only know of rating systems that considers how a player performs, are there any others? A tournament is a measure of how players perform in that tournament. You are right in that if you wish to se a performance over a longer period you have to do look at all tournaments in that period.

You misunderstand what I wrote: I wrote that you stated stalemate is a special case. Not that you wrote it needs special rules. Perhaps I didn't state it clearly.

Stalemate is a state of chess. How that state should be evaluated needs rules. These rules can not be concluded from the other rules of chess. None have ever shown how that is done. Many have stated it should be a draw. But that are just statements, not conclusions. If someone would start with the other rules of chess and via first order logic conclude stalemate is a draw I would be very impressed. I am however not intimidated by statements no matter how forcefully they are worded.

Yes, the goal of is to checkmate your opponent. Stalemate is a state of chess so that the game cannot continue by the ordinary rules. There is nothing in the other rules that you can use to conclude what should happen. That is why there are rules just for stalemate. In anything I seen someone state you could as well change the "must be a draw" portion to something else with equal validity.

So, anyone, please, prove that stalemate should be a draw, don't just state it. Otherwise, just state that you prefer it to be a draw, that's perfectly fine.

The game endings today include stalemate as the game ends when stalemate is reached. The ruling that this is a draw is arbitrary, by tradition.

And again, the points I mentioned are to be used in tournaments, the same way that the point scorings of 1, 0.5 and 0 are used today. And again, these points are awarded after the game ends, therefore the remaining pieces are of no consequence whatsoever.

"I only know of rating systems that considers how a player performs, are there any others?"

Have you ever realized there is more than one rating system? Yes? If the answer is yes, then you would realize that rating systems measure the way players perform differently. This is why the rating systems are different in the first place. This is more than sufficient to show the relevant point I made.

"You misunderstand what I wrote: I wrote that you stated stalemate is a special case. Not that you wrote it needs special rules. Perhaps I didn't state it clearly."

No, I understand what you wrote alright. It's basic English. You failed to indeed put it clearly. In fact, you failed to state it in such a way that it even agrees with what you claim to believe.

"Stalemate is a state of chess. How that state should be evaluated needs rules. These rules can not be concluded from the other rules of chess."

No, this is wrong. Stalemate is a type of endgame position in which the game is over. When the game is over, then the rules determining the purpose of the game are the rules which determine how to evaluate it. There are "no other rules". Again, you continue to misunderstand what stalemate is and its inseparable, fundamental relationship with the unambiguous objective of the game. If you cannot acknowledge thsi relationship, then having this discussion with you is futile. After all, if you are not blind, but refuse to see, then you effectively are blind.

"None have ever shown how that is done."

Yes, it has been, and refusing to see it is not a counterargument. It does not make your claim true.

"Yes, the goal of is to checkmate your opponent. Stalemate is a state of chess so that the game cannot continue by the ordinary rules. There is nothing in the other rules that you can use to conclude what should happen. That is why there are rules just for stalemate."

Then I doubt you actually know what the rules are. Let me repeat myself: there are no "other rules". You're imagining this. I do not understand where you get this notiont that stalemate has special rules, because there are not. The rules are the same as for any other draw situation, and those rules are a derivative from the objective of the game.

"So, anyone, please, prove that stalemate should be a draw, don't just state it. Otherwise, just state that you prefer it to be a draw, that's perfectly fine."

There is no point in repeating something if you are not going to be willing to see it. Look, it's a simple deduction. Premise 1: the objective of chess is to checkmate the opponent. In other words, to put your opponent in check AND to put your opponent in a state in which they are unable to undo the check by their opponent. This is the sole objective. This premise is true. Premise 2: In a stalemate, neither player is able to perform checkmate, so neither player is able to win. This premise is true by the definition of checkmate and stalemate. Premise 3: neither player is able to be checkmated legally, so neither player is able to lose. You can interpret this as a rephrase of premise 2, but I am being more rigorous, and I am not assuming the principle of the excluded middle, since that would be silly. This premise is true. Premise 4: If neither player wins nor loses, then the game is a draw. This premise is true, since it pretty much is a defining feature of what a draw is. CONCLUSION: Stalemate is a draw.

Yes, there are different rating systems. We are both saying that they work by players performance against each other. Or am i mistaken here?

I put the paranthesis where i put it in an attempt to show what I meant. Apparently it didn't work. Sorry for that. I always forget that you have to write very exactly what you mean on the Internet...

What difference does it make if you call it a state or something else? What changes?

By other rules I mean the rules of chess that doesn't involve stalemate. The rule 5.2.1 in the Laws of Chess by FIDE is only about stalemate. A special rule just for stalemate.

No checkmate can happen because the game cannot continue in a stalemate, and if it cannot continue it could as well be declared invalid. Calling it a draw because it cannot continue is no more nor less right.

You could also look at it this way: The players move alternately. The stalemated player cannot move. What should happen to him? By tradition it's a draw by stalemate. (Just a reflection: If it were a timed game and the stalemate rule wouldn't exist he would lose on time...)

You seem to be very eager to be right in this matter. As I don't think we can reach anything resembling a agreement I will let you have the last word. You may if you wish declare a win. Though it would be more like a win by stalemate...

"Yes, there are different rating systems. We are both saying that they work by players performance against each other. Or am i mistaken here?"

We are both saying that they measure the performance of players against each other quantifiably, but you are ignoring the part where we disagree, which is actually the more relevant part of this discussion. The mere fact that such different systems exist, all with arguably equal validity, is a sufficient condition to demonstrate the lack of objectivity intrinsic to the notion of performance. Objectivity is a very simple concept. If there exists a "matter of fact" truth independent of all human perception and independent of the laws of physics about what it means to the best at chess within chess theory, and what it means to "perform-well" against others, then this implies by necessity that only one rating system can exist and still be valid, and this rating system would have to be in accordance with this matter-of-fact truth. So, unless you are ready to determine which rating systems are valid and which rating systems are incorrect, and to prove logically why such a system is the correct one, then the notion of objectivity is disproven, rendering your point about tournaments and performance completely irrelevant to the scoring system respective to stalemate positions.

"What difference does it make if you call it a state or something else? What changes?"

In any discussion which is not colloquial, what you something makes all the difference in the world. This is the whole point behind having rigorous definitions within a theory or study of something. In fact, part of what makes the notion of rules what they are is the concept of rigor underlying their existence in any given context. If you are not being rigorous, then what you say is not meaningful, so if you mean what you think you mean, then I have to correct you if you are wrong. Look, even you are arguinng for an unnecssary amount of rigor concerning the rules of stalemate. It is only reasonable for me to expect equal amounts of rigor when using chess-specific terminology.

"By other rules I mean the rules of chess that doesn't involve stalemate. The rule 5.2.1 in the Laws of Chess by FIDE is only about stalemate. A special rule just for stalemate."

Fair enough. Then let me change my terminology. By the postulates which define the objective of the game, we can derive the appropriate scoring paradigm for stalemate. No need to axiomatically establish arbitrary rules about it.

"No checkmate can happen because the game cannot continue in a stalemate, and if it cannot continue it could as well be declared invalid. Calling it a draw because it cannot continue is no more nor less right."

This is a semantics argument. In reality, there is no effective difference between calling it a draw and calling it invalid. When you look at what the two constitutes, they are identical situations. One thing you can change about tournaments is that whenever a match is declared invalid, or draw, which I repeat, are on essence the same thing with simply different names, the match must be repeated, or have a special bracket to displace the players, in some sort of way as to tiebreak. However, this would not be a rule about stalemate, this would be a bracket rule for specific types of tournaments. Scoring it by 0-0 rather than 1/2-1/2 still amounts to it being equivalent to a draw due to the equal value for both players. A player gets scored depending on whether the objective of the game is achieved or not, and if so, who did so, and there is no actual difference between calling it 0-0 and 1/2-1/2 in this case.

"You could also look at it this way: The players move alternately. The stalemated player cannot move. What should happen to him? By tradition it's a draw by stalemate. (Just a reflection: If it were a timed game and the stalemate rule wouldn't exist he would lose on time...)"

Agreed, but time is not a rule of chess, time is a rule of tournaments. Different types of tournaments have different time rules. None of these tournaments disagree on the basic rules of chess, though. No tournament ever would tell you that castling is invalid, or that an endgame with a King and two Bishops must be a draw, unless it was a custom chess tournament. Similarly, these tournaments would not disagree about what stalemate constitutes or about what it means to checkmate an opponent. Why? Because those rules are not tournaments rules, they are game rules. Also, conveniently, you forget to reflect on the alternative situation, because this other situation is what really makes my point shine. If the stalemate rule did not exists AND the game was not timed, then the game could never actually end. If you are content with this, then fine, let games be actually never-ending. You can also decide to axiomatically modify chess and state as a rule of objective that the game must be timed. In such a case, untimed chess would by definition not exist, so any form of "chess" you play with your friends on the street without a timer is not actually chess, but some other game. However, this would be silly. Keep in mind that the only reason matches are timed are for the purpose of pragmatism, not because chess requires it. In principle, matches would not need a timer, because in principle, we could live forever and there is no concern about matches lasting indefinite amounts of time. This cannot be done in practice, of course, so time restrictions are useful. This is where the different types of tournament-play come in. Pragmatically, we require matches to end. Chess theory by itself does not warrant that chess as a game in principle should be a game which should ever end. So, again, modifying time rules is not changing the rules of chess, you only change the rules of tournament matches, but this is an entirely different matter, and it just means something other than actually revealing what stalemate is. You can remake the game on its fundamental postulates so that, rather than it being an abstract, theoretical construct, it is completely focused on pragmatism. However, at that point, you'll run into the complications of explaining many other rules in chess. None of these alternatives are really suited for what you seem to want for the game. You want a scoring system which assigns different scores to both players in an endgame situation in which the effect for both players is exactly the same. Seems far more arbitrary, in fact.

"You seem to be very eager to be right in this matter."

So do you. If you were not eager, then you would have stopped responding a while ago. Whether it is because you want to persuade me, or whether it is for some other reason, you are trying to prove your stance just as much as I have tried proving mine. It takes two willing agents to have a debate.

"As I don't think we can reach anything resembling a agreement I will let you have the last word. You may if you wish declare a win. Though it would be more like a win by stalemate..."

No, in reality, it would be a win by helpmate. In other words, it would be a situation in which checkmate is achievable, but not forceable, and it requires that the opponent make the choice to make a move so as to allow the checkmate. An example of this would the King with Two Knights vs King endgame. A checkmate is possible to achieve within a finite, nonzero, amount of moves, but if the opponent moves optimally, then such a checkmate can never be achieved, so the game would end by the 50-move rule, which you could argue is more of a tournament rule than it is a chess rule. However, the comparison is flawed. The nuances underlying a debate and the nuances underlying a chess game make the two different enough to be incommensurate, so a comparison between the two cannot hold. Anyway, I would not declare it a win, because debates are not about winning or losing. In a sense, debates are entirely pointless and exist only for the sake of entertainment, with the occasional consequence of someone magically being persuaded. I'm not sure what you expected from this, but I'm out now.

On one hand, I don't wish to wax philosophical.  But, there are many historical real-life rationales for why a full defeat and not a stalemate is not only encouraged but essential.  Otherwise, one gets to "live to fight another day". 

Perhaps one might consider the real-life consequences of stalemate, considering that chess is a form of war on a board.  WWI ended in an armistice, paving the way for WWII.  The first Gulf War was called off to "end the slaughter".  Look where we are today.  If you must kill, then you must kill the children so they don't grow up and enact revenge. 

As others have pointed out, the objective is "kill the king".  Regardless of all other considerations. 

Just my thoughts. 

There seems to be a concencus of opinion that stalemate is a stupid rule.

It could be argued that the 'back rank mate' is equally stupid because the king can not move out of check because of its own pieces and not because of enemy pieces.

'Checkmate' is also something that needs a lot of hot air spent on it too. It is just not fair to the losing side. Beat that for stupidity, I dare you!!

I don't know the origins of chess, but it seems like the idea of it is a war between two enemy kingdoms (black and white). If black can't move because that would give white the victory, it makes sense for black to give up at that point, or do the suicidal move anyway and die a martyr death. In either case white wins because there is no way white would agree to a draw when black is absolutely pinned. (a battlefield point of view on stalemate)

Which makes no sense because that's the very definition of checkmate. The next move doesn't exist, it's impossible ergo checkmate. The game is over when the king can't move. It's an idiotic rule, but it is what it is.

I'm not following your point. Are you saying the very definition of checkmate is when the very next move is impossible? 

To me it seems pretty simple. When the very next move is impossible and the king is under attack, that's checkmate. When the very next move is impossible but the king is not under attack, that's stalemate. Very, very different situations. 

Also, the game isn't necessarily over when the king cant move. It's just over when it can't move but it has to. For example, this game is not over even though the king can't move. 

ues

*yes

Ok, who should win the game from the following position?

Chigorin missed this drawing idea, but the idea has occurred many times since this game.

Stalemate is part of chess. Since the K hasn't been captured, it's not a loss. Examples from history include King David escaping Saul to play another day, or Mao ZeDong's escape and "long march" which allowed him to play another game, so to speak.

Depends entirely on whose turn it is