Stalemate needs to be abolished... - Chess Forums - Page 13

Kens_Mom

Jul 13, 2012

0

#241

batgirl wrote:

I see a lot of statisical and historical claims in this thread with almost no proof or even evidence.

Well, that's not completely true. Monster did cite that he got the information from Wikipedia. I always do this when creating bibliographies for my papers and my professors are completely fine with it. They go "If they say so in Wiki, it must be fact. How can I argue."

This is completely true. They don't hand the paper back to me ungraded with notes like "DO IT RIGHT," nor do they give me strange looks that imply a mixed feeling of disgust and concern. This is my method to getting "A"s on all my papers. Monster is simply applying this idea in an online situation. I see nothing wrong here. At all.

Monster_with_no_Name

Jul 13, 2012

0

#242

nameno1had wrote:

K vs K + P....player with king only is playing black....you mean to tell me you think he lost. I say he defeated white with less to work with.

Yes he should be lost, and will get his chance with white next.
I have given you all the facts in post #16. READ it.

Its a little ridiculous to ask for statistical facts on this when the GMs agree to the draw 50 moves before the K v K + p would occur. It would be a mamoth task to try to work this out. But using common sense you should see many games end with say (just 1 eg) 6 vs 5 pawns. Then one side will trade off all pawns and he has the KvK+p.

Yereslov

Jul 13, 2012

0

#243

Kens_Mom wrote:

Monster,

If I do not like the no-hands rule in soccer, I may opt to start playing soccer with the house rules "one is allowed to touch the ball." What I won't do is to go on soccer.com forums to try to spearhead a change to allow hands to touch the soccer ball.

Stalemate is one of the defining characteristics of chess in the same way that the no-hands rule is a defining characteristic of soccer. Change it, and the game is no longer the same. In other words, get rid of stalemate, and the game is no longer chess. This is why no one wants this aspect of the game to change. It's not about people being "afraid of change," or not wanting to change something that is already established "because it's established."

Since you're basically suggesting to make a different game out of chess, the reasonable thing to do is to simply create that different game without altering chess. There is no necessity to change chess itself if your version of the game can be brought to reality without altering the integrety of chess. But you seem to think that the official rules of international chess must be changed, and I'm still not sure why. The offical rules of chess won't prevent you from playing any other variant of chess as far as I can tell, though you obviously cannot say that you are playing "real" chess if you are playing no-stalemate chess (and perhaps that's what you want to change). That's not a serious issue, however, and it's definitely not a good reason to change the offical rules.

Like I said, creating a variant may eventually lead to mainline chess adopting the no-stalemate rule if it is indeed a good rule, so I don't see what the problem is (I guess I'm asking the same question for the third time).

EDIT: You asked why it can't be the official rules that become the variant. The reason is that it takes much less work and agony to have no-stalemate chess as the variant. Since they would both accomplish the same thing, why not choose the path of least resistance? This is why I say that creating a variant is more practical than trying to change existing rules.

Stalemate, castling, the movement of the queen, and en passant were all added to chess.

I don't see why we should revert back. It's just the logical evolution of the game.

nameno1had

Jul 13, 2012

0

#244

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

nameno1had wrote:

K vs K + P....player with king only is playing black....you mean to tell me you think he lost. I say he defeated white with less to work with.

Yes he should be lost, and will get his chance with white next.
I have given you all the facts in post #16. READ it.

Its a little ridiculous to ask for statistical facts on this when the GMs agree to the draw 50 moves before the K v K + p would occur. It would be a mamoth task to try to work this out. But using common sense you should see many games end with say (just 1 eg) 6 vs 5 pawns. Then one side will trade off all pawns and he has the KvK+p.

First of all I read your precious post #16...it clarified nothing for me with regard to this situation. I'll only say I am trying to appreciate your sentiment, but I can't appreciate the "logic" behind it.

Now...can you or anyone for that matter show me any documented case of a person who can see 50 moves ahead. That is 100 ply...many games don't even have 50 moves...

What the hell have you been smoking? Are you on crack?....your attempted reasoning is getting far more unreasonable by the post...

Conflagration_Planet

Jul 13, 2012

0

#245

STALEMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nameno1had

Jul 13, 2012

0

#246

Rare_Reason wrote:

"placing it [The King] under an inescapable threat of capture."- Wikipedia on the goal of chess. If you have this position, then the king will be captured, white should win:

As far as I am concerned, if you couln't checkmate me with that material advantage, you don't even deserve a draw against me. You would be the one deserving to lose.

blake78613

Jul 13, 2012

0

#247

The talk about K + p vs. K somewhat confuses me. Under the current rules some of the King + p vs. K are won and some are draws. If we changed the rules, there would still be wins and draws. There would of course be more wins for the superior side. I not sure why that has such great significance.

nameno1had

Jul 13, 2012

0

#248

blake78613 wrote:

The talk about K + p vs. K somewhat confuses me. Under the current rules some of the King + p vs. K are won and some are draws. If we changed the rules, there would still be wins and draws. There would of course be more wins for the superior side. I not sure why that has such great significance.

I tried to tell the OP this too. I am begining to wonder if he was able to get it considering he tried to steer me back to a more irrelevant point with even more irrelevant information...

waffllemaster

Jul 13, 2012

0

#249

nameno1had wrote:

blake78613 wrote:

The talk about K + p vs. K somewhat confuses me. Under the current rules some of the King + p vs. K are won and some are draws. If we changed the rules, there would still be wins and draws. There would of course be more wins for the superior side. I not sure why that has such great significance.

I tried to tell the OP this too. I am begining to wonder if he was able to get it considering he tried to steer me back to a more irrelevant point with even more irrelevant information...

And while people who never stop wondering keep posting, they're feeding an obvious troll. Ignores good posts? Fails to participate in discussion? Repeats specious or down right idiotic arguments? I wonder if we can make it to 1000 posts.

It's a wonder to me why people keep posting in this.

TheGrobe

Jul 13, 2012

0

#250

You forgot "resorts to ad hominem attacks in place of actual reasoning".

waffllemaster

Jul 13, 2012

0

#251

waffllemaster

Jul 13, 2012

0

#252

Conflagration_Planet

Jul 13, 2012

0

#253

It always upsets me when a mouse suddenly comes out of my nose.

blake78613

Jul 13, 2012

0

#254

Estragon wrote:

Without stalemate, how can the weaker side ever draw in K + P v K unless the P can't be defended (leaving K v K)? The only way to stop promotion is stalemate in one way or another.

Oddly enough, it would be possible for the lone King to WIN without stalemate in the case of a Rook pawn (although not by force, of course). White Kh8 Ph7, Black Kf7, White to move - LOSS! How insane is that?

That would be the main way, that after exchanges the King is inside the square of the pawn and closer to the enemy pawn than the defending king. This comes up fairly often. The other case is the King is in front of his rook pawn and the defending king is on the near bishop file with opposition. I would say that if the superior side kept moving his pawn until he was stalemated he would deserve to lose. I don't find that any more insane than some of the self mates that players manage to do under present rules.

blake78613

Jul 13, 2012

0

#255

>> LOSE, to the bare King? And you think this makes more sense than stalemate?<< Why not? I have never been a materialist. My opposition to the stalemate rule is that it creates too many draws.

Monster_with_no_Name

Jul 13, 2012

0

#256

Estragon wrote:

blake78613 wrote:

Estragon wrote:

Without stalemate, how can the weaker side ever draw in K + P v K unless the P can't be defended (leaving K v K)? The only way to stop promotion is stalemate in one way or another.

Oddly enough, it would be possible for the lone King to WIN without stalemate in the case of a Rook pawn (although not by force, of course). White Kh8 Ph7, Black Kf7, White to move - LOSS! How insane is that?

That would be the main way, that after exchanges the King is inside the square of the pawn and closer to the enemy pawn than the defending king. This comes up fairly often. The other case is the King is in front of his rook pawn and the defending king is on the near bishop file with opposition. I would say that if the superior side kept moving his pawn until he was stalemated he would deserve to lose.

LOSE, to the bare King? And you think this makes more sense than stalemate?

current rules (3 insane rules)

*checkmate = king cant move without moving into check (a stupid double negative). THis would be like in soccer, a goal is when the ball is travelling so that it cant miss the net, but it shouldnt actually go into the net.

*king cant move into check

*If you cant move its a draw

Alternate (1 sane elegant, easy to understand) rule:

*capture the king. (that is all)

TheGrobe

Jul 14, 2012

0

#257

The players create the draws. The rules are just the mechanism. You think eliminating stalemate will reduce the players tendencies to play drawish chess? All it would do is narrow the field of games (once the re-analysis of openings was well underway) in which equality, or more to the point, drawishness, is a key element. Payers who want to play drawish chess will simply gravitate to this smaller set of drawish games.

You can monkey with the rules of the game, but human nature is an entirely different nut to crack. Let's not confuse the two.

Kens_Mom

Jul 14, 2012

0

#258

blake78613 wrote:

My opposition to the stalemate rule is that it creates too many draws.

Regardless of whether this is true or not, removing a condition for a draw "because it creates too many draws" is not a good reason. For instance, removing the 50 move rule would probably do a lot more in terms of reducing draws, but it's hardly a sensible solution.

In any case, there's nothing wrong with draws. FIDE has come up with things like Armageddon chess when a win/lose result is necessary (such as tie breaks). Draws may certainly be boring for spectators, but I don't see anything truly problematic. At least nothing that warrants a rule change.

TheGrobe

Jul 14, 2012

0

#259

Especially when the root cause for the draws isn't actually established in the first place.

blake78613

Jul 14, 2012

0

#260

Kens_Mom wrote:

blake78613 wrote:

My opposition to the stalemate rule is that it creates too many draws.

Regardless of whether this is true or not, removing a condition for a draw "because it creates too many draws" is not a good reason. For instance, removing the 50 move rule would probably do a lot more in terms of reducing draws, but it's hardly a sensible solution.

In any case, there's nothing wrong with draws. FIDE has come up with things like Armageddon chess when a win/lose result is necessary (such as tie breaks). Draws may certainly be boring for spectators, but I don't see anything truly problematic. At least nothing that warrants a rule change.

I don't see how removing the 50 move rule would change very many draws. About the only case I can think of is a King + 2 knights vs. A king + a pawn. I know there are a few other cases but they are pretty rare.

@ TheGrobe, While it is true a lot of draws do come from both sides playing it safe. However players that try to play for a win find the margin of superiority necessary for a win frustrating. That was Capablanca's complaint (although he had a different solution). I don't think you can claim that Nimzovitch played drawish chess. There are some fighters currently playing grandmaster chess who also find it very tough to win even though they clearly outplay their opponents.