Stalemate needs to be abolished...

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1581


    How can something be abolished that happens naturally within the game?  

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #1582


    Too many posts to read. I will settle this right now---Play checkers, if you cant move you lose.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #1583


    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

    If a player cant make a legal move, his clock should be left to run out. (this is the logical conclusion when you take all the other rules into consideration) He cornered himself, commited suicide, he doesnt get a free pass. I cant choose to pass my turn at other times.

    All too often in blitz with 10 seconds left and about to queen some disaster happens where the guy cant move and he is dominated. Logical things to do: lets give him 1/2 a point ??

    To all the fools who want to comment: "your saying this because you drew a blitz game" of course it is you fool. But more to the point, also because stalemate is not a logical rule.

    Please also do not say it is my fault that I let it happen. It is you who cant move, that is your fault. I can still move.


  • 3 months ago · Quote · #1584


    what is stalemate

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #1585


       Having just read a post this parrot posted 3 years ago (and having no idea why I chose this topic for my argument)  I am obviosly not surprised that some people -4 of them- have in the last three years kept the heart of this dead topic still bleating. 


       The post from unggaunga argues from the point of 'logic'.  The only logic in chess is that it's a particular game with particular rules that  humans have played for a very long time. Certainly longer than rugby, hockey, scrabble, Tour of Dooty... you get the idea.  Logic is not the basis of the game: convention is the basis. 'Bishops' -in real life- do not confine their movements to diagonal pathways. A 'pawn' is more of a figure of speech than a living creature. 'Castles', hopefully, do not move at all. And Queens, quite often are the 'power behind the throne', not the most awful warrior in the battle. Chess is a game with rules established  over centuries. Applying logic to it is...illogical. Try explaining the logic of the 'offside rule' in soccer to, say, your wife or some other significant other.


       If you want to play with logic, consider the logic applied to war during the long history of Chess. As chess is often seen a as a represerntation of war ( but without all the gore, mud and horror), so consider the historical nature of war.  Seldom was a King's death the goal of war.  Kings were special. Kings were sacrosanct in their persons and, even in defeat, nearer In nature to their fellow absolute rulers than to the subjects over whom they ruled.  Kings didn't kill other Kings!  Take their treasure and tax their lands, by all means, but leave them their lives. Even Buonaparte -after decades of attempted World conquest-  was left to live; to live and to grieve to death on an isolated rock in the South Atlantic.  It wasn't until  the Nuremburg Trial after WW2, (or: WW1,part 2) that vanquished 'Kings', were tried -and executed- for waging war. (Or,to be cynical, for losing that war.)

    Actually, when all is said and done... if you don't like the rules of Chess, as they are, take your board and go home. Stick with playing shoot-em-up games, and playing with yourself on a computer. 

Back to Top

Post your reply: