batgirl wrote:
If there's going to be any abolition, make it checkmate. I'm tired of losing!
What if your winning? 
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
Kens_Mom wrote:
CaptainPike wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
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.
I'm pretty sure he's saying it's a moot point because both players entered into the game knowing the objective and rules. Believing you deserved a more favorable outcome based on your play when this is contrary to the rules is, as they say, sour grapes.
More to the point, nothing is stopping you from entering into a game (or games) with like minded individuals in which the rules you favour are in place.
This would be a far more reasonable course than trying to force your warped view of how chess should be be played onto the rest of the chess playing community who are happy with the rules as they stand. Go ahead and create a variant.
TheGrobe wrote:
More to the point, nothing is stopping you from entering into a game (or games) with like minded individuals in which the rules you favour are in place.
This would be a far more reasonable course than trying to force your warped view of how chess should be be played onto the rest of the chess playing community who are happy with the rules as they stand. Go ahead and create a variant.
Except of course that no one is like minded because we all disagree with him
I played an odd variant once... The third time you're placed in check, you lose. It really changed the opening because, for one, bishop takes king's bishop two was usually a winning sacrifice. So a lot of odd pawn structures to stop that.
Jul 8, 2012
0
#86
I stopped playing odd variants (like crazyhouse or bughouse) a while ago because it just makes it more difficult to improve your regular game. Messes up the patterns in your brain.
Kens_Mom wrote:
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 :(
1) "First you tell AcivilizedGentleman off by saying that your rating doesn't reflect your playing skill."
It has to be some kind of trolling but just in case you really did not understand, here are some more explanations.
My bullet rating cannot be used to reflect my chess playing in all the formats.
AcivilizedGentleman said it was laughable to think "getting 1700+ in bullet requires good chess abilities" to which I replied measuring my chess abilities only by my bullet rating was even more laughable.
2) "Then, on the very next sentence, you go and judge someone based on their rating here."
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...
There, I mock the mocker; he made a bold statement without any evidence. Is he better than what his profile showed? I don't know. That's why I made that comment about his rating, suggesting him to explain why he made such statement when there was no proof the OP sucked at chess nor himself did not.
TheGrobe wrote:
More to the point, nothing is stopping you from entering into a game (or games) with like minded individuals in which the rules you favour are in place.
This would be a far more reasonable course than trying to force your warped view of how chess should be be played onto the rest of the chess playing community who are happy with the rules as they stand. Go ahead and create a variant.
Nothing is forcing you to click on this thread. Some of us find the discussion interesting, but are realistic enough to know that there is little hope of it being adopted. Why do you insist on trolling the thread, by spamming the thread with same message endlessly?
I've posted three times -- four including this one. I think that's a far cry from "endlessly".
Incidentally, Just as nothing is forcing me to click on this thread, nothing is forcing you to read my posts.
read it...read it, punk.
<picture of a threatening fist>
Stalemate...
Im working on it people
I just got published in the worlds biggest and most respected chess magazine (I used a fake name, so dont try to send hate mail)
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8302
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Im working on it people
I just got published in the worlds biggest and most respected chess magazine (I used a fake name, so dont try to send hate mail)
Wow, I'm really impressed. While I'm firmly against abolishing stalemate, it seems like you've done quite a bit more than most others wanting to change the core rules of chess.
I hope you get somewhere with this.
ChristianSoldier007 wrote:
This is why stalemate is a rule. You can't pass, so you must move, but if you can't move anywhere legally, then its your opponents fault and its drawn.
But beside that fact, its a rule of the game thats been in effect for hundreds of years. If you don't like this game, then go play checkers
Strange stuff.. So its my responsibility, in a game where we are battling each other to the finish, to make sure your not too cramped and still have moves. Anything else I can accomodate you with? Should your opponent also bring you your coffee while your thinking? Where exactly does your responsibility not to cramp yourself come into all of this? Judging by your username your probably well versed in shrugging off responsibility.
The rules are: while it is your TURN, your clock runs. If your clock runs out, you lose. It shouldnt matter whether you can move or not. Its still your TURN.
ChristianSoldier007 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
I cant choose to pass my turn at other times.
This is why stalemate is a rule. You can't pass, so you must move, but if you can't move anywhere legally, then its your opponents fault and its drawn.
But beside that fact, its a rule of the game thats been in effect for hundreds of years. If you don't like this game, then go play checkers
It is been the rule in English speaking countries since 1820, that is a little short of hundreds of years.
Let's change the rules of '' Golf '' & ban putters ?
Jul 9, 2012
0
#97
blake78613 wrote:
ChristianSoldier007 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
I cant choose to pass my turn at other times.
This is why stalemate is a rule. You can't pass, so you must move, but if you can't move anywhere legally, then its your opponents fault and its drawn.
But beside that fact, its a rule of the game thats been in effect for hundreds of years. If you don't like this game, then go play checkers
It is been the rule in English speaking countries since 1820, that is a little short of hundreds of years.
The implication I'm getting here is that because stalemate as a draw, has "been the rule in English speaking countries since (only) 1820" it should be considered a loss now, because . . . before becoming a draw in was a loss?
Historically this doesn't seem to hold up.
In fact Stalemate was standardized as a draw because it had been considered either a win for the statemated party or a draw.
Look at Thom. Pruen in his 1804 "An Introduction to the History and Study of Chess:"
When you have greatly the disadvantage of the game, having only your queen and some inferior pieces left in play, and your king happens to be in the position of stale-mate, contrive to lose the pieces, and then keep giving check to your adversary's king, always taking care not to check him where he can interpose any of his pieces that make the stale: by thus playing, you will at last force him to take your queen, and then you win the game by being in a stalemate.
or even "An Easy Introduction to the Game of Chess" by anonymous in 1813:
The game may be lost in quite an opposite manner; because if you place your Pieces in such a situation near your adversary's King, as to prevent him moving it without making it liable to be taken, and he having no other Piece or Pawn which he can play, you lose the game. This is called a Stale-Mate.
But Jacob H. Surratt said it best in his "A Treatise on the Game of Chess" in 1808:"
If the King be stale-mate, the game is a drawn game.
Formerly, at Parsloe's Hotel, where several of the first players in Europe held a club, he who stalemated his adversary lost the game; on the contrary, in Turkey, he who stale-mates his adversary wins the game. In France, Italy, Germany, &c. stalemate has always been considered a drawn game.
It seems totally repugnant to the nature of chess, that a player should win the game, because his adversary has stale-mated him. If it were generally adopted, every player might have a twofold object in view, thai of check-mating his adversary, or that of compelling his adversary to stale-mate him.
Philidor says, that, in an edition of Greco's Treatise, published in London in 1656, stale-mate is considered a won game, but that edition is incomplete, edited by a person who knew nothing of chess, and who was even ignorant of Greco's name, for he calls him Biochimo, instead of Giochimo: it is beside unquestionable, that Greco followed the rule adopted by all Italian players of eminence, such as Paolo Boi; Leonardo da Cutri; Salvio ; Carrera; Marano; Gianutio, & ; and they uniformly considered stale-mate as a drawn game.
An 1826 translation of Philidor's "Analyse" by W. S. Kenny says:
Stale Mate—called le pat by the French, and lo stallo by the Italians, from stall, a dwelling place, because the king remains in his place,—is when the king, not being in check, is so crowded up either by his own or his adversary's pieces that he cannot move without going into check, and at the same time has no other piece to move. In this case, he is allowed with us to win the game; in France, however, it is made a drawn game.
Geo. Walker in Chess Made Easy, 1839 wrote:
As Checkmate constitutes a won game, so Stalemate constitutes a drawn game. The rule was, formerly, that the player giving Stalemate lost the game. This was grossly absurd, and very inferior to the law now universally adopted.
So history supports mainly a win for the stalemated party or a draw. Surratt argues convincingly for the historical and commonsense use of Draw.
batgirl wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
ChristianSoldier007 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
I cant choose to pass my turn at other times.
This is why stalemate is a rule. You can't pass, so you must move, but if you can't move anywhere legally, then its your opponents fault and its drawn.
But beside that fact, its a rule of the game thats been in effect for hundreds of years. If you don't like this game, then go play checkers
It is been the rule in English speaking countries since 1820, that is a little short of hundreds of years.
The implication I'm getting here is that because stalemate as a draw, has "been the rule in English speaking countries since (only) 1820" it should be considered a loss now, because . . . before becoming a draw in was a loss?
Historically this doesn't seem to hold up.
In fact Stalemate was standardized as a draw because it had been considered either a win for the statemated party or a draw.
Look at Thom. Pruen in his 1804 "An Introduction to the History and Study of Chess:"
When you have greatly the disadvantage of the game, having only your queen and some inferior pieces left in play, and your king happens to be in the position of stale-mate, contrive to lose the pieces, and then keep giving check to your adversary's king, always taking care not to check him where he can interpose any of his pieces that make the stale: by thus playing, you will at last force him to take your queen, and then you win the game by being in a stalemate.
or even "An Easy Introduction to the Game of Chess" by anonymous in 1813:
The game may be lost in quite an opposite manner; because if you place your Pieces in such a situation near your adversary's King, as to prevent him moving it without making it liable to be taken, and he having no other Piece or Pawn which he can play, you lose the game. This is called a Stale-Mate.
But Jacob H. Surratt said it best in his "A Treatise on the Game of Chess" in 1808:"
If the King be stale-mate, the game is a drawn game.
Formerly, at Parsloe's Hotel, where several of the first players in Europe held a club, he who stalemated his adversary lost the game; on the contrary, in Turkey, he who stale-mates his adversary wins the game. In France, Italy, Germany, &c. stalemate has always been considered a drawn game.
It seems totally repugnant to the nature of chess, that a player should win the game, because his adversary has stale-mated him. If it were generally adopted, every player might have a twofold object in view, thai of check-mating his adversary, or that of compelling his adversary to stale-mate him.
Philidor says, that, in an edition of Greco's Treatise, published in London in 1656, stale-mate is considered a won game, but that edition is incomplete, edited by a person who knew nothing of chess, and who was even ignorant of Greco's name, for he calls him Biochimo, instead of Giochimo: it is beside unquestionable, that Greco followed the rule adopted by all Italian players of eminence, such as Paolo Boi; Leonardo da Cutri; Salvio ; Carrera; Marano; Gianutio, & ; and they uniformly considered stale-mate as a drawn game.
An 1826 translation of Philidor's "Analyse" by W. S. Kenny says:
Stale Mate—called le pat by the French, and lo stallo by the Italians, from stall, a dwelling place, because the king remains in his place,—is when the king, not being in check, is so crowded up either by his own or his adversary's pieces that he cannot move without going into check, and at the same time has no other piece to move. In this case, he is allowed with us to win the game; in France, however, it is made a drawn game.
Geo. Walker in Chess Made Easy, 1839 wrote:
As Checkmate constitutes a won game, so Stalemate constitutes a drawn game. The rule was, formerly, that the player giving Stalemate lost the game. This was grossly absurd, and very inferior to the law now universally adopted.
So history supports mainly a win for the stalemated party or a draw. Surratt argues convincingly for the historical and commonsense use of Draw.
the only infrence you should draw and the only implication I intented is that when people say "that it should not tamper with the current stalemate rule because it has been a draw before that has been the rule for centuries ever since God carved the stalemate rule in stone and handed it to Moses", they have idea what they are talking about. I consider it an invalid reason for not changing the rules, on a par with the argument that if God intended man to fly he would have given him wings. The only argument I have advanced for considering changing the stalemate rule is that there are too many draws in chess. I personally favor counting a stalemate as .75 win which happens to be the rule Lucena was working with.
Jul 9, 2012
0
#99
I didn't mean necessarily your implication, but the implication leading up to your reply. That's why I called it an implication rather than an assertion, but I guess I should have been clearer, or used a different quote perhaps.
Draw, however is a step up from being a win for the person in stalemate.
Really, how many high end games result in a draw from stalemate. Stalemate at any experienced level is a tactic more than anything... hmm...I can't move here because after QxN he'll have a stalemate or can force one.... A draw by stalemate seems eminently fair. A player with the advantage who can't force a mate doesn't deserve to win, not even a .75win. But the last part is just my opinion which is a most common commodity and valued accordingly.
Okay, Grobe, I get what you're saying. I took "you" as "me" heheh, as smart as I am, I am so stupid sometimes hahha!