I might have repeated someones post, I didnt read them all btw.
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
Stalemate threads need to be abolished...
Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
Stalemate threads need to be abolished...
Then how am I supposed to spend my vacation? This thread is the highlight of my summer.
Stalemate is the due and proper punishment of the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" winner getting sloppy.
I've done it more than once. How many times, I'm not telling...it is nobody's business. lol
It really does make you feel like a fool to lose a game that you had all but won. In fact, I think it stings more than losing. And, the loser who gets a stalemate feels better than if he had won, because he was "down for the count".
All around, it is a nifty law of nature. Chess is boring enough. Stalemate adds some spice and high drama (OK...that's a bit of a stretch) to the game.
Eggshells...we are walking on eggshells in a minefield. That's what I keep telling myself, from start to finish.
Buy a timeshare to highlight your summer.
e4nf3 wrote:
Stalemate is the due and proper punishment of the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" winner getting sloppy.
I've done it more than once. How many times, I'm not telling...it is nobody's business. lol
It really does make you feel like a fool to lose a game that you had all but won. In fact, I think it stings more than losing. And, the loser who gets a stalemate feels better than if he had won, because he was "down for the count".
All around, it is a nifty law of nature. Chess is boring enough. Stalemate adds some spice and high drama (OK...that's a bit of a stretch) to the game.
Eggshells...we are walking on eggshells in a minefield. That's what I keep telling myself, from start to finish.
No, it's not a stretch. Just look at all the drama it's caused in this thread alone. It just doesn't have as great of an influence over players that have developed a much more mature relationship with the game.
Funny like a clown.
Part of the problem is not only the "loser" but also the "winner" comtributes to a stalemate. You can almost always go back and find perfectly reasonable alternate moves that keep the other player from ending up in a stalemate. But yeah i see your point.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Monster I admired your fierce/acerbic campaigning style ! ( Also 9000 games at 10/0 !! )
Look forward to the next one...
And here I was thinking that this thread had the potential to surpass Monster's previous stalemate thread, but it's about 250 posts short.
Saying stalemate needs to be abolished is a sign of a sore loser. No offense.
Well, I suspect someone(s) above must have already said this...but I don't have the time/inclination to tread through all the noise...and, if no one has said it...then it is high time that someone did.
Getting proficient at obtaining a stalemate from an ostensibly lost position is a skill. (Unless, of course, the supposed "winner" just screws up...which is often the case).
For years now, I have had "to do" lists. I'm almost certain that: "Practice how to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse at your chess game." is somewhere on that list. Just above: "Call the cemetary and purchase a pre-paid "final services" plan."
I actually admire people who have spent dozens, hundreds and even...in rare cases, I'm sure, thousands of hours on finessing a stalemate.
They are to be commended.
Actually e4nf3, in 559 prior posts I don't think anyone else actually praised the skill of the stalemater - you make a fair point. The closest I think we came was saying that it could be result of sacrificial combination. In the 2 games of Monsters that we looked at that seem to have sparked this tirade though it seems to be just a failure to win rather than a success at drawing.
Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
Actually e4nf3, in 559 prior posts I don't think anyone else actually praised the skill of the stalemater - you make a fair point. The closest I think we came was saying that it could be result of sacrificial combination. In the 2 games of Monsters that we looked at that seem to have sparked this tirade though it seems to be just a failure to win rather than a success at drawing.
This sounds like a scavenger hunt challenge.
blake78613 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Either learn how to mate or quit chess.
Avoiding stalemate is basic knowledge.
Even amateurs know how to avoid it.
Give me a break. You are a class D player who twice in a row fell for the Blackburn Shilling Gambit . You have never faced a player who knew how to play for a stalemate. The great Samuel Reshevsky fell for stalemate traps twice in his career, and you couldn't begin to fill his shoes. Until you have side stepped stalemate traps set by an expert like Larry Evans, it is rather presumptuous of you, to say you know how to avoid them.
The above (post 198) clearly deals with the skill of playing for stalemate and I think it is implicit in many of the references to the Evans - Reshevsky game.
Wow! Monster.. you've got the gift. The gift to get people to explain things,over and over again and several full circles. And all with that locomotion of love steaming through the whole thread. THEY love it really!
Gotta say though... your title,made you look like you were really dissapointed that you couldnt win after working so hard.And having to watch the clock tick down, not a thing you could do! I bet your opponant just folded his arms and said wow! that was lucky!
Certainly, with all the millions (billions?) of chess books written...and as I recall from somewhere that more books have been written about chess than any other subject (I don't know whether or not that is true, but I do know far too many have been written than the time I have to read them all...lol)...someone must have written a book on how to force a stalemate in a multitude of lost-game scenarios.
If not, this could be a money maker (although, I personally probably wouldn't spend hard-earned cash to buy it). Street Fighter, hereabouts, has written a chess book...and Silman, I truly value his "The Complete Book of Chess Strategy" (one of my favorite chess books).
Certainly, one of these gentlemen (or, perhaps a new, upstart writer) could pan for gold with: "The Encylopedia of Forcing a Stalemate".
Or, how about: "The Art of Chess Stalemates for Dummies"? (I have, and also highly value: "Chess for Dummies" and "Chess Openings for Dummies".)
Maybe chess.com could even provide an online training guide: "Chess Stalemate, Grandmaster Style".
Afterthought: "The Greatest Chess Stalemates of the Last 100 Years". A "show-and-tell" cookbook or "how to" book of obscure but fascinating stalemate examples.
Maybe: "The Complete Book of Chess Stalemate Puzzles"?
Even an online tactical trainer for mastering the art/science/sport of stalemating.
The possibilities are more than all the atoms in the universe. lol
There certainly are books already dedicated to good defensive play, and such books should have a section on stalemate as a good defensive resource. "The Greatest Chess Stalemates" sounds like a great idea though.
Regardless, the type of stalemates that Monster is most concerned with seems to be those that involve one player having a significant material advantage, I.e. ones where the "winning" side is in time trouble and/or goes into autopilot and makes the mistake o giving stalemate. Of course, no books should be written about such situations since they are reliant on the dominating side making a blunder. And an obvious one at that.
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)
No its not easy to understand. If you can capture the king to win standard games will feel like blitz games. I think if your complaining about stalemate because you keep giving stalemate, I suggest you look before you move and improve your endgame play so you wont give stalemate pretty much ever again because you have good knowledge of the endgame. You would want to keep stalemate again because it wont be affecting you when your winning. When your loosing in a million dollar game ,lets say, and the player is around 500 points higher than you in rating points; you would wish stalemate was around! Lets say you are loosing and you no legal moves left, it would have been a draw but no, stalemate is no longer here so who is the looser here not the person who is winning of course. And if you move into what was supposed to check for you, because why say check when your trying to take the king, who wins, like really now, who wins. Or lets change the rules again and make the king jump over the file or rank where a rook or queen is controlling to make the solution to it also? I am really sick of this getting rid of stalemate crap.