That would be logical if the king were allowed to be captured
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
my post #16 was published on chessbase as an article.
The highly esteemed editor of chessbase 100% agreed with me.
try addressing the issue logically...
and people wonder why Im calling these idiots , idiots.
Ironically, it is you who is the idiot.
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
BowerickWowbagger wrote:
I have just spoken to some guys I know at FIDE and they are genuinely interested in the OP's suggestion,give it some time I reckon it will go.
Well, that settles it. How long would we be waiting before the rules are officially changed? Would the 2012 Chess Olympiad be affected by this?
Don't believe it. FIDE would never change the official rules of chess for no reason. Endgame theory would need to be rewritten. Older-than-this-day games would be put into the trashbin. Never, if you'd ask me.
pynchon45 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
my post #16 was published on chessbase as an article.
The highly esteemed editor of chessbase 100% agreed with me.
try addressing the issue logically...
and people wonder why Im calling these idiots , idiots.
Why don't you post something useful, like where to find good whores in Miskolc?
Are moderators reading this ?
How do we get this guy banned?
The worst Im calling people is idiot, because theyre putting up really lame arguments. This guy should be banned.
Drawing by stalemate is less a reflection of the 'logic' of the rule than an indictment on your endgame play. When a game of chess gets to the point where you have sufficient material to mate an isolated king, it's time to take a deep breath and work hard to finish the job.
Briefly stated, the match is yours to win or lose, so don't let your opponent wiggle out of his predicament.
ElVelez014 wrote:
Has anyone considered what would happen when the game comes down to only two kings?
According to Monster_with_no_Brain's theory, someone could still lose by putting their king en prise for the other king :D.
Anyway, Monster, if someone is gonna get banned, it is you. And don't ever think of making another 50-page long thread just to call other people's logical opinions and arguments "idiotic" and calling those people "idiots". This site here is made for playing chess by the official rules. No one is forcing you to be here. Just move on to a chess variant and play as much as you wish. Just stop shitting on our lawn.
The OP's attitude and comments throughout this thread have really been disgraceful. His argument, flimsy as it is, was blown out of the water weeks ago but he simply ignores it. Imagine if all of this thought and effort had been put toward something constructive, instead of an embarrassing attempt to "save face" after carelessly blowing
An easy win
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
The OP's attitude and comments throughout this thread have really been disgraceful. His argument, flimsy as it is, was blown out of the water weeks ago but he simply ignores it. Imagine if all of this thought and effort had been put toward something constructive, instead of an embarrassing attempt to "save face" after carelessly blowing
An easy win
A great summary. This thread can now be locked.
KingsEye wrote:
Matthew11 wrote:
It's just the very nature of stalemate itself, where is the logic in being punished for not allowing the oppenent to make a move?
Because you have prevented the game from continuing in a legal manner and a game must have a result. The only fair result is a draw then. It is not the fault of the stalemated player that the stalemater prevented the game from continuing and failed to give checkmate. The only way to win a chess game is to give checkmate. No checkmate, no win. Therefore it must be given a draw result. I don't see why we need to discuss changing the rules because some players failed to give check mate and so didn't win. It is a game, you play by the rules of the game.
It's just as logical to declare stalemate as a win as a draw.
By the way, "Just because" is not an argument.
I see it as more akin to a fortress position than to checkmate, so a draw seems a much more logical result.
On principle, it also seems wrong to award a win to a player who could not conclusively prove his advantage by achieving checkmate or a loss to a player who defended sufficiently as to prevent it.
Not that anything I say will get addressed directly, I'm sure a little more name-calling will be the likely response.
MarvinTheRobot wrote:
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
The OP's attitude and comments throughout this thread have really been disgraceful. His argument, flimsy as it is, was blown out of the water weeks ago but he simply ignores it. Imagine if all of this thought and effort had been put toward something constructive, instead of an embarrassing attempt to "save face" after carelessly blowing
An easy win
A great summary. This thread can now be locked.
First of all it's an ad hominem attack which has been recognized as a logical fallacy since Aristotle. The so called summary doesn't even address the major arguments for changing the stalemate rule. It is one of the most popular threads on the site with 28,585 hits. Why should the thread be locked? If you don't like the thread, don't click on it. Problem solved!
It's not an ad hominem attack at all, it's a summation of Monster's behaviour and all fact. I don't think the intent was to tie his character to his argument.
Only just now?
The major arguments and rebuttals to changing the stalemate rule already have been addressed ad infinitum.
And the OP's response to the rebuttal that stalemate is 100 percent due to the player delivering stalemate has been ad hominem attacks. Why? Because the OP can't rebut it. His very first post is illogical, as numerous posters have pointed out.
Any player who carelessly allows stalemate should be punished for doing so and is under the completely fair, current rule.
my post #16 was published on chessbase as an article.
The highly esteemed editor of chessbase 100% agreed with me.
try addressing the issue logically...
and people wonder why Im calling these idiots , idiots.
Why don't you post something useful, like where to find good whores in Miskolc?