Then pawn promotion as well as all the other rules must be abolished. Hey, why not abolish chess.... It seems to solve all the problems regarding you guys!
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
I just couldn't read any more after monster's tome in #16. Especially when Borgqueen's post (#4) pretty much tells it like it is.
Kens_Mom wrote:
"You can move your king into check" wouldn't work in the stalemate position shown below. It's a pretty bogus position, but still legal and should be accounted for.
as i said:
If you cant move your clock will run out...
If you cant move and I can, obviously I have an advantage.
dahal32 wrote:
Then pawn promotion as well as all the other rules must be abolished. Hey, why not abolish chess.... It seems to solve all the problems regarding you guys!
Moron. I have no problem with arbritrary rules, as long as once youve established them, you dont go contradicting them
rule 1 of chess
when its your turn you have to move and cant pass otherwise your clock runs out and you lose.
Someone else has already hinted at this, but you should try pioneering a new chess variant, "No Stalemate Chess." The best way to see whether a new idea works is to try it out, and (from the looks of it) it's a much better way of getting your point across than arguing here. Who knows, you might get a large following after some time.
I'm not entirely clear why you view the the stalemate rule as a problem to begin with. You say that it's "illogical" and "contradictory," but such qualities make the game more rich and complex. It would be a problem if the rules for stalemate were ambiguous, but that's not at all the case here. Since it doesn't actually cause any gameplay problems, my impression is that you want stalemate abolished because it doesn't suit your taste.
:(
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Kens_Mom wrote:
"You can move your king into check" wouldn't work in the stalemate position shown below. It's a pretty bogus position, but still legal and should be accounted for.
as i said:
If you cant move your clock will run out...
If you cant move and I can, obviously I have an advantage.
You need to be kidding me, like I said before.
That would just be considered a win for the person who gave stalemate. It will also waste their time.
So for example, the person who got stalemated has 10 min on the clock. Now you and your opponent has to wait and sit for 10 min.
Thats not smart at all. And that goes for any amount of time.
Stalemate is a logical axiom.
-kenpo- wrote:
II-Oliveira wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
addyshuppy wrote:
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.
R and K vs Q and K is also, technically, a theoretical draw. but just about near impossible to pull off otb.
I think you mean a theoretical win...yea. This ending often happens with 2 passers vs. a Rook. Usually the Rook gets at least a draw anyways haha.
captainpierce wrote:
Omg I didn't win, therefore the rules are broken and must be changed.
You nailed it!
cferrel wrote:
You just suck at chess if you cannot avoid a stalemate. Go play checkers with the other little girls.
From your 1408 rating points...
AcivilizedGentleman wrote:
gattaca wrote:
cferrel wrote:
You just suck at chess if you cannot avoid a stalemate. Go play checkers with the other little girls.
From your 1408 rating points...
it feels rather moot to diss other peoples rating when you're comparing their rating to your bullet rating. I'm in your level in bullet and the idea that getting 1700+ in bullet requires good chess abilities is laughable
More laughable could be the idea that my abilities are measure by my bullet rating. But you can make all the assumptions you want.
Also what was first laughable was a suggestion to "go play checkers with the other little girls" coming from... errr... Who? a GM? Nope, just an ordinary 1400 rated player.
gattaca wrote:
AcivilizedGentleman wrote:
gattaca wrote:
cferrel wrote:
You just suck at chess if you cannot avoid a stalemate. Go play checkers with the other little girls.
From your 1408 rating points...
it feels rather moot to diss other peoples rating when you're comparing their rating to your bullet rating. I'm in your level in bullet and the idea that getting 1700+ in bullet requires good chess abilities is laughable
More laughable could be the idea that my abilities are measure by my bullet rating. But you can make all the assumptions you want.
Also what was first laughable was a suggestion to "go play checkers with the other little girls" coming from... errr... Who? a GM? Nope, just an ordinary 1400 rated player.
First you tell AcivilizedGentleman off by saying that your rating doesn't reflect your playing skill. Then, on the very next sentence, you go and judge someone based on their rating here.
This makes me sad :(
II-Oliveira wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
addyshuppy wrote:
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.
2nd thought...it is challenging to KEEP stalemate from happening, that's a good point you just covered. It's a twist to perhaps a lost position? :) I can see that, and hey by golly, if Fischer thought it was ridiculous or Kasparov, I'm sure they would have made up a new game, without the 'stalemate" feature.
_IronButterfly_ wrote:
II-Oliveira wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
addyshuppy wrote:
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.
2nd thought...it is challenging to KEEP stalemate from happening, that's a good point you just covered. It's a twist to perhaps a lost position? :) I can see that, and hey by golly, if Fischer thought it was ridiculous or Kasparov, I'm sure they would have made up a new game, without the 'stalemate" feature.
You're probably right. There already is the chess variant, "Fischer Random," which Fischer pioneered to mitigate the effects of opening memorization. I'm sure Chess.com would gladly make a feature to accommodate a no-stalemate variant of chess if it became popular enough, and one way to accomplish that would be having strong support from a world champion. Regardless, I doubt that there will ever be a no-stalemate chess world championship for the same reason that there currently is no Fischer random chess world championship. Moreover, I doubt that no-stalemate chess would ever be popular enough to become a mainstream variant of chess.
Jul 6, 2012
0
#56
If there's going to be any abolition, make it checkmate. I'm tired of losing!
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.
He can't pass his move either, which is why stalemate exists. If he could pass, you could checkmate him on the next move.
If he drew you, then he wasn't dominated. He continued doing his best at a game he would probably lose, and he outplayed you in the endgame.
If you really had dominated the other player, he probably would have taken the defeat and started another game, whereas you are upset about a tie.
Ask yourself if you actually like playing chess. It's a fair question, and "no" is a fair answer.
-kenpo- wrote:
Kens_Mom wrote:
_IronButterfly_ wrote:
II-Oliveira wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
addyshuppy wrote:
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.
2nd thought...it is challenging to KEEP stalemate from happening, that's a good point you just covered. It's a twist to perhaps a lost position? :) I can see that, and hey by golly, if Fischer thought it was ridiculous or Kasparov, I'm sure they would have made up a new game, without the 'stalemate" feature.
You're probably right. There already is the chess variant, "Fischer Random," which Fischer pioneered to mitigate the effects of opening memorization. I'm sure Chess.com would gladly make a feature to accommodate a no-stalemate variant of chess if it became popular enough, and one way to accomplish that would be having strong support from a world champion. Regardless, I doubt that there will ever be a no-stalemate chess world championship for the same reason that there currently is no Fischer random chess world championship. Moreover, I doubt that no-stalemate chess would ever be popular enough to become a mainstream variant of chess.
actually, there have fischer random world champions. I think Peter Svidler was fischer random world champion.
Huh, I didn't know that, and thanks for letting me know. I guess that explains why chess.com has a chess960 feature.
Jul 6, 2012
0
#59
Well it's just a rule in chess. Nowadays any rule changes produces a new chess variant, not new chess. Maybe someday a variant gets so popular it eclipses current chess, and we call it the "new chess" or some other fancier name, but I dunno...
Please don't call people who don't like stalemate as sore, because if we allowed stalemate as a win then I'm sure we will get a bunch of sore losers crying for stalemate as a draw. Its just part of chess, just as stalemate win is a part of XiangQi(a chinese game similar to chess). Personally I feel that there is nothing inferior with both rules, but since I'm playing chess on this site, I'll stick to the current chess rules.
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.
The strategy of chess seems to reflect war in real life, which makes it so interesting. The stalemate rule is therefore appropriate. In reality until the King or ruling faction is thoroughly removed there is always the possibility of a future comeback. Therefore, a total checkmate (or resignation) is required for a win. So a stalemate is exactly that -- an indeterminate ending, which must mean a draw. Pure and simple.
Good position doesn't mean winning position. If you can't attack the king, then it's not a win.
But it doesn't have to make sense or be a likable rule to be a good one. If you changed it a lot of basic endgames which are drawn would become wins. Stalemate adds depth and skill to the game.
Other "odd" moves like castling, en-passant, and promotion could be removed too, but IMO the game would be worse for it. Or heck even the rule you can't capture your own pieces, or otherwise remove them leave the board if they're in the way.