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.
no, I meant exactly what I wrote. rook and king vs queen and king is a theoretical draw believe it or not, but it's near impossible to pull off otb.
I don't get the joke.
This is what Fine's Basic Chess Endings says about Q vs R endings without pawns:
"This is a win, but from a general position the process is complicated.
In order to have drawing chances, Black must keep his Rook near his King, for otherwise a check will capture the Rook. The basic winning idea is to force Black into zugzwang, so that he will have to move his Rook away from his King."
The book goes on for another page elaborating on this idea.
Hmmmm.....
To demolish your point with one sentence, what if there is no clock?
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.
no, I meant exactly what I wrote. rook and king vs queen and king is a theoretical draw believe it or not, but it's near impossible to pull off otb.
Well, first of all, this is a 4 man endgame, so with tablebases this ending isn't theoretical at all.
Secondly it is a win for the stronger side.
Oh, I see. You know it's won, but instead of saying: "it's not a guaranteed win" you say: "it's a theoretical draw"
When you say the result is a theoretical ______ it assumes best play from both sides. So it's not correct to say a theoretical draw. You can say there are drawing chances due to the technical difficulty or practical problems, but it's not even a theoretical position... it's been solved.
TBH, being able to force a stalemate is a hugely underrated Chess skill. It shows that you can work with losing pieces to achieve something. Without stalemates the endgame of chess just isn't any fun for the loser.
TBH, being able to force a stalemate is a hugely underrated Chess skill. It shows that you can work with losing pieces to achieve something. Without stalemates the endgame of chess just isn't any fun for the loser.
if he's stalemating, he's not losing, thus not a loser.
What I meant is, if there is no stalemate rule, and it is clear that you really have no chance of winning, than it is no fun for that person since they are just waiting to be the loser. If there is a stalemate rule, then even if you have drastically worse material, then it is still fun because you can try and force a stalemate.
hey judas you left your 30 pieces of silver in the stream go get them and let the adults talk about chess thanks
hey judas you left your 30 pieces of silver in the stream go get them and let the adults talk about chess thanks
Firstly, it is Judas Maccabeus, a Jewish hero, not Judas Iscariot.
Secondly, I am 23 years old, which is probably older than you judging from the immaturity of your comments.
Thirdly, why the hostility? Perhaps my comments are dumb, it is possible, I have only recently taken up chess as a hobby. However, there is no reason to be so rude about things.
hahaha i love it i am being broken off by a jew hero thanks for keepin me grounded boss.
I was brought up told that I should hardly ever resign because there is often still a chance of winning because the other player gets excited about winning and then makes a mistake. I hardly every purposely put someone in a stalemate on purpose unless it's bound to be a draw anyway. I mean, who would give up a win or unknown conclusion for a stalemate?
Jebcc- No need to say stuff like that about Judas just because that's his name. I'm sure we could find someone with ur name who did something terrible too...but, we are not going to.
I think one thing that makes chess interesting is insistence! when the loser try hard to reach stalemate, the winner should be aware of ALL of his moves. you should avoid laze even if you have the best position and it makes the game more exciting.
This ridiculous subject needs to be abolished.
Make yourself a variant, recruit a following, supersede the classical rules of chess, even, if you feel it's such a good idea, but for the time being, let us enjoy the game in all it's current glory without your incessant whining about the well established rules you know full and well are in place for very good reasons.
* If you cannot move, you are powerless, without options, restricted, oppressed and dominated and violating the spirit of the "you must move and not pass your move" rule. Why should you get 1/2 a point?
Because you outsmarted your oppoent, which is what chess is all about. Your opponent outsmarted you. So if anything, it is you who go the "get out of jail free" card; not your opponent.
Who outsmarted who is based entirely upon the rules in play, not some modified version based on what you think the definition of "outsmarted" should be.
* If you cannot move, you are powerless, without options, restricted, oppressed and dominated and violating the spirit of the "you must move and not pass your move" rule. Why should you get 1/2 a point?
Because you outsmarted your oppoent, which is what chess is all about. Your opponent outsmarted you. So if anything, it is you who go the "get out of jail free" card; not your opponent.
Mistype. I meant to say:
"Because your opponent outsmarted you, which is what chess is all about. So if anything, it is you who 'got the get oout of jail free card'; not your opponent".
Who outsmarted who is based entirely upon the rules in play, not some modified version based on what you think the definition of "outsmarted" should be.
This post makes absolutely no sense to me.
Who outsmarted who is based entirely upon the rules in play, not some modified version based on what you think the definition of "outsmarted" should be.
This post makes absolutely no sense to me.
I think what he's trying to say is that we're all beating a dead horse here.
* If you cannot move, you are powerless, without options, restricted, oppressed and dominated and violating the spirit of the "you must move and not pass your move" rule. Why should you get 1/2 a point?
Because you outsmarted your oppoent, which is what chess is all about. Your opponent outsmarted you. So if anything, it is you who go the "get out of jail free" card; not your opponent.
You get the half point because your opponent was dumb enough to stalemate your king.
I notice the decent players with a real desire to improve post all sorts of questions and ideas for discussion and advice. Then you have the whiners complaining because they don't like the rules.
Take it to FIDE - they have a permanent committee on the rules, and it's their job to listen to stuff like this.
Judging from what I've seen on chess.com, that must be one of the most frustrating jobs ever.