The OP is a joke right? Theres no way anyone could think that. If a person is dumb enoughto stalemate someone or someone losing is smart enough to force a stalemate, the game should be a draw.
We've been trying to tell him that.
The situation being referred to is deeper than simply avoiding a draw by stalemate. I don't agree with the premise or with a lot of the shaky or erroneous supporting data, but it's still an interesting consideration.
Hey MonsterwithNoName,
The current rule is the best one. -- The game would be poorer with your propsed rule. Just try playing through some old games with your rules and see.
Napolean's capture. I am astounded that you dont understand that this signifies CHECKMATE. The point is that they not only have to defeat his army - they have to capture him.The french army on the other hand will not send napolean out to die with the infantry.
Gambits/attacking pawn sacrifices would be less popular because the player taking the risk has a greater chance of losing rather than drawing. When I sacrifice a couple of pawns, I chance it hoping that I can get a drawn endgame. You need to carry out a statistical analysis on games in which one player launched an attack but only got a drawn endgame because the other player defended well.These attacks will now be completely UNSOUND since the opposition does not matter anymore and you lose with a pawn or two down ALWAYS.
7-star hotels? Don't understand that. Army A has king A in palace A and does not let King A be killed. The purpose of Army A is to protect king A at all costs. Additionally Army A tries to kill King B. But Army B protects King B at all costs. Hence king is not captured unless inevitable.
What you dont understand is the current rule which is you win by checkmating. Stalemating is totally different since the king is not under attack.
Bizzare stuff.
Whats this "army doesnt want to send the king to the enemy and it fights for the king" stuff have anything to do with what we're talking about??
What bizzaro parrallel universe are you living in?
When the army is done fighting for the king and there is a lone king surrounded by 5queens and a bishop AND the king cannot move, how is that not the king captured??????
WEIRD!
Not captured because silly army hasn't put him in check. Result = foolish army & draw by stalemate...
400?
400?
400!
Here's the problem:
I keep hearing this touted as a solution to the drawish nature of chess at the top levels without having seen one shred of evidence presented that stalemate is actually the cause. Frankly, I believe stalemate specifically contributes very little to these tendencies towards draws, especially at the GM level.
I'd like to see some arguments with a little more meat on the bone.
Heres the real problem: you have too much bone and not enough meat in your head. I already (200 times) offered evidence. ok little grobe heres what you do (kindergarten steps)
1.get your crayons out
2. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8302
3. scroll to the very bottom (where they have games from Kramnik! v Anand! WCC game! Korchnoi! v Karpov! WCC game!)
4. review the games
5. NOTE in korchnoi karpov they could have agreed the draw BECAUSE OF STALEMATE 70!! moves before!!! (but they played it out so that patzers like you would get it) This is the point. GM draws often end early because they see whats coming (you dont). Often the reason is stalemate.
6. beg forgiveness
7. draw me a nice diagram of how much you are sorry with the crayons.
You asked specifically for WCC games for evidence.
I give it, and then you switch to : I dont see ENOUGH evidence now.
Foolish little grobe. 1 instance is enough.
Its like me telling you unicorns exist, you denying it, I show you one.. you say show me more.
Have some milk, have a nap, rest the 2 brain cells, then have a think and get back to us.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
I never said that stalemate never occurs or factors in master level games, but rather that the claim that changing the rule would have any kind of material (let alone profound) impact on the drawishness of the game at that level is specious at best. Showing one example in which it factored in a drawn game doesn't mean that stalemate factors in a large proportion of the games.
To correct your unicorn analogy: I claim that the idea that unicorns are more plentiful than cows is tough to believe, you show me a unicorn as proof that they are. Well done. Doesn't have anything to do with what I just said.
I suppose it makes a little more sense now why you'd be more comfortable reading in crayon though.
Casual players are more prone to stumble into stalemate. I am a casual player, and stalemates are rare in my games. At the GM level, I can't imagine how they can affect the incidence of draws to any signifigant degree. Perpetual check, if you know what that is, probably results in more draws than stalemate. Still not signifigant. Also, "monster," you need watch your tone. You shouldn't be rude to people just because they don't agree with you.
Casual players are more prone to stumble into stalemate. I am a casual player, and stalemates are rare in my games. At the GM level, I can't imagine how they can affect the incidence of draws to any signifigant degree. Perpetual check, if you know what that is, probably results in more draws than stalemate. Still not signifigant. Also, "monster," you need watch your tone. You shouldn't be rude to people just because they don't agree with you.
I gave 2 excellent examples of stalemates in WCC games (highest level of human play). It happens at that level. Its not just about idiots "stumbling" into it. There are many bad implications from stalemate for endings.
When idiots like you dont read my posts and keep coming with the same garbage, I have full rights to use what tone I want.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
I never said that stalemate never occurs or factors in master level games, but rather that the claim that changing the rule would have any kind of material (let alone profound) impact on the drawishness of the game at that level is specious at best. Showing one example in which it factored in a drawn game doesn't mean that stalemate factors in a large proportion of the games.
To correct your unicorn analogy: I claim that the idea that unicorns are more plentiful than cows is tough to believe, you show me a unicorn as proof that they are. Well done. Doesn't have anything to do with what I just said.
I suppose it makes a little more sense now why you'd be more comfortable reading in crayon though.
Are you serious??
How many times do we have to go over this with you?
KvK+p would now pretty much always wins. There are many cases right now where it does not. THIS MEANS, YES, IT WILL PRODUCE LESS DRAWS.
The example I gave with Korchnoi Karpov (did you even bother to look??)
K+B+p(rook pawn, opposite color of bishop) v K
This example is a whole CLASS! of endgames you fool.
THIS WILL PRODUCE LESS DRAWS IF STALEMATE IS A LOSS.
Look at the Kramnik Anand one as well, AGAIN its a case of KvK+p.
Are you 2 brain cells firing at all ??
Monster_with_no_Name, I did answer your post #16 in my post #258 which you prefered to ignore. Here is a copy-paste (so that you don't have to search).
1. Chess is a board game. It doesn't have to have any resemblance to real life. Real life scenarios can't be used to justify rule change.
2. Logic is irrelevant when talking about rules of game. Bishop moving diagonally – is it logical or illogical? It's neither, just neutral. Same about stalemate rule.
3. There is no contradiction in the rules. Stalemate ends the game immediately. Nobody has to move after that.
I do agree that stalemate=win will reduce percentage of draws. Just not ready to pay the price. Not draws are the problem, but short boring draws and there are other less radical measures (Sofia rules, scoring system) to address this issue. Anyway at amateur level the problem of too many draws simply doesn't exist.
It could be interesting to test proposed change as chess variant to see what kind of game it creates. But it looks like you are not interested to do something practical preferring heated forum debates.
I want to keep existing rules because:
1. They create wonderful game that I love and enjoy a lot.
2. There are few hundred years of games and theory. That's something too valuable for me. You obviously have not much respect for chess tradition. No problem. But you can't force me to feel the same.
After all we play chess for fun. Now Monster_with_no_Name comes and starts claiming that our way of having fun is not the right one and we should do it differently and accept his way of having fun. And when we disagree he gets angry. That's plain ridiculous.
My IQ is well above that of an "idiot." Given the amount of emotion you appear to be pouring into something that will never happen, I have to question your intelligence. Let me phrase that in way you'll be more likely to understand: Duuuuuh, take crayons and, duuuuuh, put them where sun not shine, duuuuuuh.
Why dont you just take a simple example of a king stalemated on the edge of a board, What will be the solution to such a problem.
There is no logical way of saying that who ever is ahead in material wins! And you cannot also say that its your turn but hey you cannot move so you lose.. So you cannot avoid a rule such as stalemate :)
Monster_with_no_Name, I did answer your post #16 in my post #258 which you prefered to ignore. Here is a copy-paste (so that you don't have to search).
1. Chess is a board game. It doesn't have to have any resemblance to real life. Real life scenarios can't be used to justify rule change.
2. Logic is irrelevant when talking about rules of game. Bishop moving diagonally – is it logical or illogical? It's neither, just neutral. Same about stalemate rule.
3. There is no contradiction in the rules. Stalemate ends the game immediately. Nobody has to move after that.
I do agree that stalemate=win will reduce percentage of draws. Just not ready to pay the price. Not draws are the problem, but short boring draws and there are other less radical measures (Sofia rules, scoring system) to address this issue. Anyway at amateur level the problem of too many draws simply doesn't exist.
It could be interesting to test proposed change as chess variant to see what kind of game it creates. But it looks like you are not interested to do something practical preferring heated forum debates.
I want to keep existing rules because:
1. They create wonderful game that I love and enjoy a lot.
2. There are few hundred years of games and theory. That's something too valuable for me. You obviously have not much respect for chess tradition. No problem. But you can't force me to feel the same.
After all we play chess for fun. Now Monster_with_no_Name comes and starts claiming that our way of having fun is not the right one and we should do it differently and accept his way of having fun. And when we disagree he gets angry. That's plain ridiculous.
This post does a very good job of summing things up. It's too bad that this too will be ignored. :(
Monster_with_no_Name, I did answer your post #16 in my post #258 which you prefered to ignore. Here is a copy-paste (so that you don't have to search).
1. Chess is a board game. It doesn't have to have any resemblance to real life. Real life scenarios can't be used to justify rule change.
Agree
2. Logic is irrelevant when talking about rules of game. Bishop moving diagonally – is it logical or illogical? It's neither, just neutral. Same about stalemate rule.
When setting up a system of rules, logic is very important.
We can make many contradictory and stupid rules, if logic is not important.
3. There is no contradiction in the rules. Stalemate ends the game immediately. Nobody has to move after that.
If we made a new rule, that on move 49 the bishop can move off the board and into your butt, it doesnt technically contradict the rules either, but its not a good rule, its not logically consistent with the other rules. The implications of the stalemate rule are the problem.. they contradict one of the main pilars of chess "you must move when it is your turn" even if you will lose the resulting position. Im post #16 I outline a far more elegant and logical solution.
I do agree that stalemate=win will reduce percentage of draws. Just not ready to pay the price. What price are you paying? Not draws are the problem, but short boring draws and there are other less radical measures (Sofia rules, scoring system) to address this issue.
Why are you OK with the meddling of the rules with sofia rules, you should be arguing against it (the rules are the rules)
Anyway at amateur level the problem of too many draws simply doesn't exist.
Dont worry about amatuer level... those sheeple dont matter.
It could be interesting to test proposed change as chess variant to see what kind of game it creates. But it looks like you are not interested to do something practical preferring heated forum debates.
I want to keep existing rules because:
1. They create wonderful game that I love and enjoy a lot.
2. There are few hundred years of games and theory. That's something too valuable for me. You obviously have not much respect for chess tradition. No problem. But you can't force me to feel the same.
I dont respect tradition for the sake of tradition.. (this is again the rules are the rules in a different guise) If it is a good tradition we keep it, if bad lets drop it. People used to kill people for being witches. Should we respect this "Tradition"?
After all we play chess for fun. Now Monster_with_no_Name comes and starts claiming that our way of having fun is not the right one and we should do it differently and accept his way of having fun. And when we disagree he gets angry. That's plain ridiculous.
I agree with most of monster's points, but I have one question: Why would reducing the number of draws neccesarily be a good thing?
I think that removing stalemates would make endgames extremely perplexing for non-computers, and perhaps not in a good way. Think about an endgame position that we would now call dead drawn. Equal material, no major positional disadvantages for either side. That sort of position, without stalemate, would very often be objectively won for one side. And it would be very difficult to tell which side.
Also, I think removing stalemates would drastically increase the amount of white wins. Black could no longer play for a draw, so would have to play more dangerously. White, on the other hand, could suddenly convert minute advantages, like those obtainable with the first move in many parts of modern opening theory, to easy wins.
Monster_with_no_Name, I did answer your post #16 in my post #258 which you prefered to ignore. Here is a copy-paste (so that you don't have to search).
1. Chess is a board game. It doesn't have to have any resemblance to real life. Real life scenarios can't be used to justify rule change.
Agree
2. Logic is irrelevant when talking about rules of game. Bishop moving diagonally – is it logical or illogical? It's neither, just neutral. Same about stalemate rule.
When setting up a system of rules, logic is very important.
We can make many contradictory and stupid rules, if logic is not important.
All that's really required from rules is that they are clear and fair to both players. Subjective opinions should play no role in determining if a rule is right or not.
3. There is no contradiction in the rules. Stalemate ends the game immediately. Nobody has to move after that.
If we made a new rule, that on move 49 the bishop can move off the board and into your butt, it doesnt technically contradict the rules either, but its not a good rule, its not logically consistent with the other rules. The implications of the stalemate rule are the problem.. they contradict one of the main pilars of chess "you must move when it is your turn" even if you will lose the resulting position. Im post #16 I outline a far more elegant and logical solution. Why would this "you must move when it is your turn" rule take priority over the stalemate rule? Regardless, there's been well more than 10 posts stating that a game is considered to be over at the point of stalemate any way, so it's technically noone's turn at that point, i.e. a player does not make a move when in stalemate for the same reason that a player would not make a move when he's in checkmate. There is no contradiction.
I do agree that stalemate=win will reduce percentage of draws. Just not ready to pay the price. What price are you paying? The price he is referring to is the large amount of cascading change to the game that your "simple" rule change would make. Not all of it would be positive, and most of us believe that it'll largely be negative. Not draws are the problem, but short boring draws and there are other less radical measures (Sofia rules, scoring system) to address this issue.
Why are you OK with the meddling of the rules with sofia rules, you should be arguing against it (the rules are the rules) The Sofia rules doesn't really change the game play rules. It just restricts players from drawing games by agreement. The game must be taken to a theoretically drawn position.
Anyway at amateur level the problem of too many draws simply doesn't exist.
Dont worry about amatuer level... those sheeple dont matter. Alright.
It could be interesting to test proposed change as chess variant to see what kind of game it creates. But it looks like you are not interested to do something practical preferring heated forum debates.
I want to keep existing rules because:
1. They create wonderful game that I love and enjoy a lot.
2. There are few hundred years of games and theory. That's something too valuable for me. You obviously have not much respect for chess tradition. No problem. But you can't force me to feel the same.
I dont respect tradition for the sake of tradition.. (this is again the rules are the rules in a different guise) If it is a good tradition we keep it, if bad lets drop it. People used to kill people for being witches. Should we respect this "Tradition"? This statement doesn't carry much weight unless you've made a good case that the stalemate tradition is bad. I think uri make a clear case that it's not a bad tradition.
After all we play chess for fun. Now Monster_with_no_Name comes and starts claiming that our way of having fun is not the right one and we should do it differently and accept his way of having fun. And when we disagree he gets angry. That's plain ridiculous.
Kens_Mom, thanks for good points.
Monster_with_no_Name,
I am glad you finally agree that existing rules are "technically" not contradictory. The rest (about "main pillar") is just your interpretation .
Sofia rules don't change the essence of chess. You can still take any game from 1880, or 1950 or 2012 and understand what's going on. It's not so with stalemate rule. All the classical games will become incomprehensible for someone who learned to play with stalemate=win rule.
The impact of proposed change is difficult to predict. That's why so many people suggested that you create a variant first and test it. it's fairly simple. You could even play it here within a group of players who support your idea. Just make an agreement that player who is about to be stalemated resigns one move before. Then you could post games in this thread - that will be something interesting and constructive.
And why do you think that chess tradition is bad? It's a treasure IMHO.
the fish are biting pretty good
There are free worms here too....this awesome....
Monster is basically dangling is flayed arm off the side of the boat, and us piranhas gotta eat.