Think about it, if you have played so badly that you don't even have any legal moves left, then should it be considered loss or a draw for you? Clearly it's a loss.
Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever
Sort:
Aug 31, 2017
0
#143
cyborg86 wrote:
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!
These are all draws that occurred, or could have occurred in tournament games.
Aug 31, 2017
0
#144
Ashvapathi wrote:
Think about it, if you have played so badly that you don't even have any legal moves left, then should it be considered loss or a draw for you? Clearly it's a loss.
Or, the player with the material advantage played so poorly that they didn't prevent a stalemating position. Same goes for things like triple repetitions or 50 moves with no captures or pawn moves. Stalemate is another situation where the stronger side needs to be cognizant of the available resources and try to prevent them.
Stalemate being a win for the side giving it has been tried and tossed aside by history. Don't see any reason why it would make a comeback.
Ashvapathi wrote:
Think about it, if you have played so badly that you don't even have any legal moves left, then should it be considered loss or a draw for you? Clearly it's a loss.
I know that it feels unfair that stalemate is being ruled as a draw since the winning side clearly can trap the enemy king completely in a zugzwang position where any slight movement by the king equates to doom. But many easily drawn endgames will become wins if stalemate is ruled to be a win for the stalemating player. Two examples are as follows.
Imagine the effort it takes to win a game. It would be so much easier for the winning side to end the game. Stalemate being ruled a draw gives the losing side an opportunity to 'make amends' for his/her earlier poor play.
In chinese chess (xiangqi) though, a stalemate is a win for the stalemating player.
Stalemate is the best rule. It makes games exciting by giving a player who is down a possible resource.
You guys have made me reconsider stalemate. Maybe it is a good idea because it is so rare.
I still firmly believe that chess has a huge problem with the amount of draws that it currently has between GMs.
I don't think chess should be happy with the results of the 2016 World Championship when 10 of the 12 games were draws and I think GMs should get together and come up with ideas to improve chess again.
eric0022 wrote:
Ashvapathi wrote:
Think about it, if you have played so badly that you don't even have any legal moves left, then should it be considered loss or a draw for you? Clearly it's a loss.
I know that it feels unfair that stalemate is being ruled as a draw since the winning side clearly can trap the enemy king completely in a zugzwang position where any slight movement by the king equates to doom. But many easily drawn endgames will become wins if stalemate is ruled to be a win for the stalemating player. Two examples are as follows.
Imagine the effort it takes to win a game. It would be so much easier for the winning side to end the game. Stalemate being ruled a draw gives the losing side an opportunity to 'make amends' for his/her earlier poor play.
In chinese chess (xiangqi) though, a stalemate is a win for the stalemating player.
Exactly, and it would be correct if it happens that way. I think, right now, many king and pawn endgames and rook and pawn endgames are drawn due to the stalemate rule. If there was no stalemate rule, then most of those endgames would end in win for the side having extra material. And that way would be the correct way rather than the silly stalemate rule.
Ashvapathi escribió:
Think about it, if you have played so badly that you don't even have any legal moves left, then should it be considered loss or a draw for you? Clearly it's a loss.
To force such a situation takes an accurate play in the endgame more often than not.
Kingpatzer wrote:
vickalan wrote:
While war is not chess, and chess is not war, they are often used as analogies for one another. For example, it's been said that while Putin plays chess, Trump plays checkers.
As a vet and a chess player, I'm here to state categorically that they have nothing to do with each other.
It continues as an analogy because people mistakenly think that strategic thinking from one domain to another is a transferable skill.
I understand that point of view, and of course they are very different in many ways. But there are some interpretations where chess has similarities to a game which represents a battle or war:
1. A players collection of pieces is often called an army.
2. War assets are considered "material" and often used to judge the strength of an army. Chess pieces are also described as "material", and often used to judge the strength of a player's army.
3. Pawns are often considered to be armed peasants.
4. Knights are trained in the martial arts, and have been used in medieval times to wage battles and war.
5. Most wars are led by a leader for each side, where the leader's survival is of paramount importance. Each side's army in a game of chess also has a king, which is a type of leader, and his survival is of paramount importance.
6. The rook is often depicted as some type of fortress or castle (even called a castle) which in medieval times was used to defend a clan from attack by an opposing army.
7. Military commanders often use a war strategy where the lowest-ranked soldiers (i.e. most expendible) are sent to battle first, and they are sacrificed to achieve material or positional gains. This strategy can also be effective in chess.
8. Wars are fought not for points, but to threaten the existence of the enemy or the enemy's leader. The war will often continue until one side has been obliterated or capitulates. Some wars have ended in stalemates. Chess games are also won, lost, or drawn in the same way.
Of course, not all chess players use this interpretation. And there are chess games where Pokeman characters are used instead.
Aug 31, 2017
0
#151
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.
Stupid Clown! What makes you say that you will be brutally murdered? What if the player with the stalemated King has more material? (I've had games over the board with this exact scenario!)
Are you saying that the King that is stalemated now wins?
Case in point! WKg7, WPh7, BRh8, BKe7. Black just captured your Rook on h8. You play 1.Kxh8 and Black now plays 1...Kf8 or 1...Kf7. STALEMATE! Are you now saying that Black should win? With just a King????? GET BENT!
I can't make a legal move. You can't capture my King on your next move. The game is a draw! Period!
Stalemating is an art. If you move a piece and voluntarily stalemate your opponent, and that's what you are whining about, then you are just a complete utter moron! There's just no other way to put it!
Aug 31, 2017
0
#152
Chess is a terrible game.
If both sides play perfectly, the result will be a draw. Even if both sides just play well, the game is only drawn. The margin of a draw is quite large. You can be up two knights against a lone king and still not be able to force checkmate.
The only way to win a game is to hope your opponent makes a big mistake.
Stalemate is just one way to make a draw, and it's not even the most obnoxious one. You can have an absolutely overwhelming position on the board. You can take every single piece that your opponent has except the king, and still not be able to win because you used too much time on the clock!
I once drew a FM in a USCF rated game on move 73 by claiming the 50 move rule. No pieces had been taken, and no pawns had been pushed after move 23!
Chess has the stalemate rule, and it's a good rule.
vickalan wrote:
Kingpatzer wrote:
vickalan wrote:
While war is not chess, and chess is not war, they are often used as analogies for one another. For example, it's been said that while Putin plays chess, Trump plays checkers.
As a vet and a chess player, I'm here to state categorically that they have nothing to do with each other.
It continues as an analogy because people mistakenly think that strategic thinking from one domain to another is a transferable skill.
I understand that point of view, and of course they are very different in many ways. But there are some interpretations where chess has similarities to a game which represents a battle or war:
1. A players collection of pieces is often called an army.
2. War assets are considered "material" and often used to judge the strength of an army. Chess pieces are also described as "material", and often used to judge the strength of a player's army.
3. Pawns are often considered to be armed peasants.
4. Knights are trained in the martial arts, and have been used in medieval times to wage battles and war.
5. Most wars are led by a leader for each side, where the leader's survival is of paramount importance. Each side's army in a game of chess also has a king, which is a type of leader, and his survival is of paramount importance.
6. The rook is often depicted as some type of fortress or castle (even called a castle) which in medieval times was used to defend a clan from attack by an opposing army.
7. Military commanders often use a war strategy where the lowest-ranked soldiers (i.e. most expendible) are sent to battle first, and they are sacrificed to achieve material or positional gains. This strategy can also be effective in chess.
8. Wars are fought not for points, but to threaten the existence of the enemy or the enemy's leader. The war will often continue until one side has been obliterated or capitulates. Some wars have ended in stalemates. Chess games are also won, lost, or drawn in the same way.
Of course, not all chess players use this interpretation. And there are chess games where Pokeman characters are used instead.
So by your logic, then, Old Maid and Go Fish are also games of "war", since they use playing cards depicting armed kings and jacks. "Battleship" is a naval war simulation instread of a simple guessing game with pegs. Maybe "Operation" is a game about triage and the hard choices faced during conflicts. Hungry Hungry Hippos could be a deadly game about fighting over limited resources.
I could get even more absurd, but point made. Chess is not a war/battle simulation. That's how people that know nothing about Chess see it 
...as little toy soldiers and horsies.
btickler wrote:
...Chess is not a war/battle simulation...
lol - I didn't say chess is a war simulation.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
Stalemate being ruled a draw gives the losing side an opportunity to 'make amends' for his/her earlier poor play.
In chinese chess (xiangqi) though, a stalemate is a win for the stalemating player.
This is a misconception.Stalemate is simply a defensive technique and not an "opportunity for the losing side to make amends for it's poor play".
Correct, and this is essentially making amends to some extent - not in the form of regaining material, but in the form of escaping a loss.
Back to the war analogy, suppose a sniper just accomplished his job, but enemy forces arrive before he escapes. He can't move or he'll get caught. He didn't lose, and the enemy can't really move without letting him escape. This logic says it should be a draw, however, the sniper loses if he moves whereas the enemy won't lose if they leave.
The more I think about it, stalemate should be a loss for for the player who has put himself/herself into a position that they can't make a legal move. How is that logic refuted? OK it's my turn but I can't move without being taken, I should win? LOL!!!
I should be awarded a tie? LOL!!! This game has been called the game of Kings. I think I know why now. Some King put himself into stalemate and then declared himself the winner! This is only logical explanation I can think of for such a stupid rule.
Now that I've thought about it some more a time machine to figure out this illogical rule sounds like a great idea. We could go back in time to the moment when a tyrant King or a spoiled brat Prince made up this stupid rule just for their own benefit, because they were in abosulute power!
Ashvapathi wrote:
Think about it, if you have played so badly that you don't even have any legal moves left, then should it be considered loss or a draw for you? Clearly it's a loss.
If you don't have any legal moves left but are not in check, it is your opponent who has played badly for allowing it to happen. Or, maybe you defended well and steered the endgame into a a position where stalemate was inevitable. In either case, I don't know how you could argue that the "superior" side deserves to win.
Aug 31, 2017
0
#160
If we agree that checkmate wins the game, then stalemate should be a draw. The opposing king isn't dead and can't be killed by any legal means.
Has such a thing happened in real life? Yes, many times. There have been unsuccessful sieges where all of the surrounding territory had been taken but the King's private domain remained in tact. The combatants would agree to terms and move on.
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 an 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.
I meant to say that the word stalemate itself shows that it was considered a mate but of a stale kind and therefore a dishonourable way of winning (I don't know why). Therefore, it was downgraded from a mate to a draw. But I think it does not make any sense because objectivity speaking one side has already lost because they have no option but to get checkmated in the next move.