And with less draws, almost none, chess becomes more popular! Then GMs can actually make a living playing chess! And instead of having to quit and become a tax accountant; like the brilliant GM Michael Stean, who wrote "Simple Chess" they can happily continue their chess career. What a concept!
Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever
Sort:
Aug 30, 2017
0
#123
Why would chess suddenly become more popular ???
Possibly more chess players might "tune in" and watch more games, but why would rule changes attract more players ? The general public doesn't give a hoot about chess. They suddenly won't be interested because of silly rule changes preventing draws. This is "faulty" logic with no basis in any factual studies. It is merely an assumption.
In fact... I think that Draws play a major role of a possible game result, giving the underdog chances to score 1/2 point might be an attraction for many players. The fact one could find themselves behind in a position, but by fighting on a drawing solution is found adds another quality to the game.
I played a simul vs. Vasily Smyslov. My objective was to achieve a draw from move 1. (which I was lucky enough to accomplish). It is the most rewarding game I have played.
Aug 30, 2017
0
#124
Let's be honest getting yourself into checkmate is easy but show how much skill you've got and try and get into stalemate. Stalemate is the hardest thing to accomplish in chess, it takes great skill to get into it.
Aug 30, 2017
0
#125
Honestly, stalemate is easy to see, plus usually the opponent has to blunder badly not see it.
Of course it wouldn't be chess in it's current form. That's the point of changing rules!
Like:
Switching the starting placement of the King and Queen to put them on the same file.
And
Pawn Rule Changes
1. 2 squares on 1st move
2. En passant
3. Pawn promotion (this rule has changed as recently as Post Staunton)
Bishops
1. From 2 spaces to the length of the board
Queen
1. From 1 space to the length of the entire board
King and Rook
1. Castling
Stalemate-5 variations (with only 1 logical one)
Etceterra
Aug 30, 2017
0
#127
How has the pawn promotion changed?
en passant and pawns moving 2 squares were incorporated at the same time in the 15th century, the last rule change in chess. (pertaining to piece movement)
Aug 30, 2017
0
#129
If the first-move-advantage isn't sufficient to be a theoretical win, then a draw is the supreme or optimal outcome. I don't understand this prejudice against draws, other than unwarranted draws. A drawn game is just as often as exciting and interesting as a win.
Aug 30, 2017
0
#130
UthorPendragon wrote:
In the past Stalemate has been treated 4 different ways depending on where and when it was played.
1. The player who can't legally move his king, loses.
2. The player who can't legally move his king, wins.
3. The player who can't legally move doesn't get to move and the other player gets to move again.
4. The game is a draw.
Since chess was a game to simulate a war or battle I would say only number 1 or 3 is a logical.
btickler,
Since you're so evolved and are perfectly happy with draws, why not take up drawing? As chess was/is an old game of war simulation, I'm surprised someone as evolved as you even plays the game! How can you enjoy moving pieces of combat? How can you live with yourself simulating battle and violence? Does it pain you when you take another's piece. Don't you feel unevolved, murderous and primordial?
Okay, first of all, stalemate rarely happens at the elite level. Drawing is based off of theorectically drawn positions. Stalemate should remain the same thing it is. Btw, whoever made the analogy of the siege castle, thumbs up to you man!
The history of the pawn promotion rule is covered well in Wikipedia. There were many variations. I will cover some here, in no particular order of history. Some of it is actually quite humorous. Philidor thought having 2 Queens should never be allowed! I think the Mormons changed that rule. Pawns could only promote to a piece that you had previously lost. Pawns could only promote to the piece, that was originally on the same file, at the beginning of the game, that the pawn ends up promoting on. For example a Pawn promoting on a8 becomes a rook. A Pawn promoting on b8 becomes a knight. You couldn't have 2 Kings so no promotion for a pawn on e8! Think about that strategy for a moment. I'd better figure out how to take his d Pawn with my e Pawn! The rule finally got straightened out in the Steinitz era.
You guys are killing me!
Prejudice against draws!
LOL
You don't know that less draws will make the game more popular.
ROTFL
Only complete chess nerds (and I am one) would have to be told that it is human nature for people to like a winner.
We don't need to do a scientific study to understand this, but by all means go ahead and do one if you want, ProfesserPownall.
Other games, sports, movies, entertainment are all competing with chess for time. It's not a huge jump in logic to figure out that almost all sports made rule changes to reduce ties. They did that because humans like having a winner. It's in our DNA. After the 10 draws and 1 win each even FIDE had something in place to insure there would be a winner. One day of Rapid Chess had to be used to determine a winner since the real chess match of 12 full games failed to do so!
The point is people are getting better at chess and GMs
People don't like ties, draws
Chess rules have evolved over time to make the game more exciting and fun since the game was invented. Now that the top GMs are so good that most of their games end in draws, new rules need to be made to stop that from happening. This is simple common sense. And the stalemate rule was never logical in the first place.
Aug 30, 2017
0
#134
Well, it seems that most of the people on here do like ties, draws. And you're the only one that doesn't. 
Aug 30, 2017
0
#135
I think that stalemate should still be considered a draw. There are numerous works of art that can be achieved by a resourceful stalemate defense. One such game is Beliavsky-Christiansen, Reggio Emilia, 1987. Black achieved a stalemate straight out of the middlegame.
Stalemate used to be a win for player. At least that's what I was told.
Aug 31, 2017
0
#137
you will still say that when you get stalemated and still want to lose!?
beats me
Aug 31, 2017
0
#138
"Only complete chess nerds (and I am one) would have to be told that it is human nature for people to like a winner.
We don't need to do a scientific study to understand this, but by all means go ahead and do one if you want, ProfesserPownall" Uthor
A well fought draw is appreciated and enjoyed by the majority of chess players who "understand" the nature of the game imo. That there must be a winner and loser, that draws should not be allowed, is a minority opinion expressed by those who do understand the nature of the game. ROTFL all you like Uthor, you are in the vast minority and do not understand human nature in this regard. Chess is not comparable to a football or basketball game where a draw is frowned upon. To change a dozen rules to prevent a draw is absurd.
Your claim that people like a winner is "in our DNA" is truly laughable. Clearly you simply "make stuff up" with no understanding of which you speak. People like a winner for several reasons (a cultural phenomenon) that have nothing to do with DNA.
Totally agreed, stalemate is a stupid rule. It always was. I mean, stalemate is the ultimate zugzwang. Anyway, the word stalemate itself shows that it was considered a mate at some point and slowly downgraded into a draw.
Aug 31, 2017
0
#140
Ashvapathi wrote:
Totally agreed, stalemate is a stupid rule. It always was. I mean, stalemate is the ultimate zugzwang. Anyway, the word stalemate itself shows that it was considered a mate at some point and slowly downgraded into a draw.
@batgirl has posted on this and linked to an article on it. If you read through, you'll see it has been different results at different times. There was no slow degradation, just evolution.
Sorry, present company excluded of course.