I think stalemate is an important part of the game because the opponent can force himself into stalemate. You consider this folly on his part, but I see it as skill. The king is not dominated, the winning player should have had the skill to finish him off.
If the losing player is "losing", he still has the chance of drawing by stalemate. ie he still has a chance to show is skill and is not completely humiliated.
I do see your point Monster, and to be perfectly honest you're the closest person to convincing me that stalemate should be changed. The logical aspect of "capturing the king" makes a lot of sense. However I think that we should note one fundamental aspect of this...
It's a game!
The rules are there to be clear for both sides and only are relevant to the 64 squares in front of you. If the rules had to keep changing to reflect real life, then other changes would have to be considered:
Knights logically wouldn't leap over the infantry, the King would be out front leading the charge, CASTLES DON'T MOVE!!, the Bishop wouldn't snipe (or have a tactical role at all), Bishops also would have the ability to move in more directions than diagonal, bishops are not faster than horses, pawns should be able to attack their front and step backwards, the queen is unlikely to be the best warrior on the field, pawns wearing drag to look like the queen does not make them super warriors... Do you see where this is going?
If your research is correct, then it took ~600 years to change the stalemate to the way it is. I'm sure there were many many many debates about it, but in the end a decision was made, theory has developed around it and I think more damage would be done to change it back to "the good old days."
It is an interesting debate, but I doubt you'll get many onside with this.
All of you (except "disgruntled sheep" user)are arguing about my character rather than arguing against the logical points Ive made in post #16.
As for post #30 from "disgruntled sheep" I would say this:
I have no problem with arbritrary rules (as the rules of chess are), what I have a problem with are when they are not consistent with each other and contradict each other.
(ie You have to move and cant pass your turn, while its your turn your clock runs, if your clock runs out you lose.) Stalemate is an obvious ugly contradiction to this.
You mainly play blitz & do have low draw-percentage (4%) ? Yet that is still 388-games. Surely a few stalemates amongst them ??
Stalemate gives losing people hope to keep playing onward. Do you want to take away the hope of chess players?
Stalemate gives losing people hope to keep playing onward. Do you want to take away the hope of chess players?
A huge number of people seem to have this strange idea that a person with 3 queens owes the losing person something. Can you explain to me where this mentality comes from?
Chess is a fight.. if two people are locked in a fight and fighter A cuts off all fighter B's limbs and B is hopeless and cant move, should A start cutting off his own limbs to give B "a chance, some hope" ?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Hm.. I have to admit, the idea of stalemating has always been abit nuts. In monopoly, if a person doesn't want to move to boardwalk because there is a hotel on it, and he has 200 left, hm..is that stalemate? It's just a funny little rule really, in my humble lowrated opinion.
So the king is chased around and the king is hoping to be put in stalemate so he can get out of loosing. YEp, where is the logic there? ;)
Stalemate gives losing people hope to keep playing onward. Do you want to take away the hope of chess players?
A huge number of people seem to have this strange idea that a person with 3 queens owes the losing person something. Can you explain to me where this mentality comes from?
Yes, they owe something. Unless the other side resigns, you must prove you know how to use your material advantage to win.
Most people can't win with K+N+B vs K, althought it is a 6 points avantage and a theoretichal victory. Never heard anyone saying it is unfair and trying to declare instantaneous victory. If you want to win, learn how to do it by the rules.
If you were not able to convert a 3 queens advantage in victory, due to stalemate rule, I guess you don't even deserve that half point. It is extremly easy to avoid stalemate in such situation.
Try Arimaa. Not only are there no stalemates there are no draws of any kind. It ain't chess but what are ya gonna do?
Or chinese chess. There a stalemate is a win for the player giving stalemate.
I love that game. I've been extremely addicted to it ever since I found out that I'm pretty good at it! Saying this might get me banned, but I actually prefer it to chess. Of course, I might prefer chess if I was a top chess player. The better you are at something the more enjoyable it tends to be IMO.
Hm.. I have to admit, the idea of stalemating has always been abit nuts. In monopoly, if a person doesn't want to move to boardwalk because there is a hotel on it, and he has 200 left, hm..is that stalemate? It's just a funny little rule really, in my humble lowrated opinion.
So the king is chased around and the king is hoping to be put in stalemate so he can get out of loosing. YEp, where is the logic there? ;)
The situation you described also happens in chess. It is zugzwang, when all the legal moves makes the position worse than it is. In stalemate there is no legal move at all. It is different from having to move to the hotel you can't afford, it is more like having a zero on the dices.
The situation you described also happens in chess. It is zugzwang, when all the legal moves makes the position worse than it is. In stalemate there is no legal move at all. It is different from having to move to the hotel you can't afford, it is more like having a zero on the dices.
The very simple rule "you can move your king into check" (yes your king will be captured next move) solves all these problems.
By the way, stalemate is not always with 3 queens.. there are many subtler ones where one side sacrafices everything in a long chain and gets stalemate. The problem with it is it flips chess logic on its head. The whole priority of the game is to get the king... in stalemate "you got the king too well". This is ridiculous... the losing side can sometimes throw every piece at the opposing king and the king has to take it (or its a draw by 3 move rep) and then because the lone king cant move its a draw.
To use the monopoly analogy, I would make all stupid desicions, go bankrupt on purpose and say now the game is defunct and you dont win because Im bankrupt.
Here's my take on stalemate:
If you think of chess mathematically as a game tree of positions (a directed graph), then what the game amounts to is, each side gets to alternately choose edges to travel down a directed path in the tree. The goal of the game is then to choose the edges in such a way that you force the game to a position that results in a win, which in the rules of chess is defined as "checkmate" (not "capturing the king").
Now we see why stalemate should be a draw. We reach a position in the game tree which has no edges eminating from it. (In other words, there are no legal moves for the next player.) Who should win? The answer is no one. Neither player has forced the game to travel down a directed path that results in checkmate for them. Since neither play was able to achieve this, the only sensible result is to call the game a draw.
She used a monopoly analogy, hence the hotel.
MWNN said: "The very simple rule 'you can move your king into check' (yes your king will be captured next move) solves all these problems."
Very true. Of course, this means we have to completely abandon our definition of what moves are legal, and what the goal of the game is (checkmate, not capturing the king). I think this is a bit much for most players to accept.
To use the monopoly analogy, I would make all stupid desicions, go bankrupt on purpose and say now the game is defunct and you dont win because Im bankrupt.
No, because if someone bankrupts on purpose he loses, the sameway as a chess player loses if purposely checkmates himself. Anyway, lets stop with the monopoly analogies.
You said it is absurd that a player can make several moves that leads to a draw and the "winning" side can't stop it. However, to avoid being in such situations when winning and to find the moves that force stalemate when losing are all part of chess skills. Now you are basically complaining because a skilled player can find moves that destroy all your material advantage. Well, that is chess!
MWNN said: "The very simple rule 'you can move your king into check' (yes your king will be captured next move) solves all these problems."
Very true. Of course, this means we have to completely abandon our definition of what moves are legal, and what the goal of the game is (checkmate, not capturing the king). I think this is a bit much for most players to accept.
This rule is already used for very fast OTB games. It makes sense for them, as players often play too fast and take some moves to realize the King was left en prise.
However, in normal games, we should stay with the rule.
Jacks and hopscotch are also viable options for leetle guuuuurls.