Forums

Stalemate needs to be abolished...

Sort:
Avatar of zborg
zborg
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1001
TheGrobe wrote:

Perhaps the ability to claim a draw on three-fold repetition and after the 50 move rule should also be reviewed in light of the all compelling requirement that players move when it's there turn.  I mean, the clock's there to ultimately decide the game, so why should the player in the defensive position get a draw here?  In both cases, one player almost always has the initiative so he should be awarded the win.

Or maybe we could just skip the middle man and jump right to a game of hot potato.

Laughing  @Monster has taken this suggestion under advisement.  He will return to the fray shortly.  One hopes not.

Avatar of Monster_with_no_Name
Monster_with_no_Name
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1002
TheGrobe wrote:

It's cherry picking, plain and simple.

On one hand: "You can't base an argument about what the rules should be upon what the rules currently are"

On the other: "The rules state you must move on your turn, so a player who's been stalemated must be compelled to move, and to place his king en-prise at which point it can be taken"

I could just as easily put higher priority on the rules that prohibits moving your king into check and argue that this makes the stalemate rule logical and necessary, but then Monster would call me a goldfish and return to his argument about not citing existing rules despite the fact that he's doing exactly the same thing.

why do you guys keep missing the point ?

Im not al all saying dont cite the current rules...

Im saying dont base your conclusion about which system of rules is better with this thinking process:

"current rules dont have [technical] inconsistencies AND they are current, therefore they are best"

Avatar of Monster_with_no_Name
Monster_with_no_Name
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1003
BattleManager wrote:

My opinion about the topic: "Just no...".

Grobe look at this guy... after the post #16 I wrote up .. idiots comes along like this (95% of ppl that post here do something like this) and grafitti my thread... and your suprised I lose my cool and start calling ppl idiots?

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1004
TheGrobe wrote:

By the way, there's been a strong argument put forth that the stalemate position is 100% the result of the last player to move (the one who delivered stalemate).  You seem hesitant to address it.  I'd love to hear your take, especially since you're so adamant about holding people to account for their moves....

Well?

Avatar of Monster_with_no_Name
Monster_with_no_Name
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1005
uri65 wrote:

Any consistent set of rules can be used to define a game. Existing rules are great because:

1. they create a game that everybody enjoys a lot (except for Monster)

2. there is wonderful chess tradition of few hundred years (for which Monster expressed no respect because of "silly rules" but that's his problem)

New rules create game of unknown nature (and Monster ignored suggestion to try it as a variant for testing) and it will cut with tradition (which is unacceptable for me and many others).

These simple arguments Monster has left without answer in the past so I decided to give it another try.

Here is a perfect specimen of the typical "current rules are the rules so they are the best" type of post.

Each point is totally vague. "makes a fun game" (because if we change the stalemate result from .5-.5 to 1-0 the game would become unplayable and totally boring.
Addresses nothing to do with the rules themselves...
Talks about totally irrelevant appeals to authority (tradition).

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1006

In addition to which rules you place priority on, you cherry pick which arguments you address as well.

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1007
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

Talks about totally irrelevant appeals to authority (tradition).

So does citing the compulsion to move as the ultimate authority in the game, over even the prohibition on moving your king into check.  The relative priority you place on existing rules is entirely arbitrary.

Avatar of Monster_with_no_Name
Monster_with_no_Name
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1008
TheGrobe wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:

By the way, there's been a strong argument put forth that the stalemate position is 100% the result of the last player to move (the one who delivered stalemate).  You seem hesitant to address it.  I'd love to hear your take, especially since you're so adamant about holding people to account for their moves....

Well?

This is very simply! Im surprised you didnt understand this:

ok .. Each player is 100% responsible for their own moves.

OK.. under the current rule (ie stalemate = 1/2) it is indeed 100% the responsibility of the person who is about to deliver the stalemate to ensure the opponent has legal moves left! hahaha I have to be courteous to you in a WAR game to check you can still move and waste my time doing so (many of these positions require huge amounts of time to do this!)

under (stalemate = 1-0) it is 100% YOUR OWN  responsibility to ensure you your self have legal moves left!

This is what Ive been arguing all along ... that it should be your own responibility to make sure you have the ability (the power) to make moves on your own turn.

I hope this clears it up once and for all.

Also do you see how your whole thinking is tainted with the "current rules are the rules, there are no inconsistencies" ? You didnt even factor in my rules into the debate! Youve goto be a bit more broadminded.

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1009

That's a pretty circular argument:

"Sure it's consistent under the current rules, but if the rules were changed to my liking it would be inconsistent, and that inconsistency (i.e. resolving it) is why the rules should be changed to my liking"

Do you even hear yourself?

Avatar of uri65
uri65
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1010
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
uri65 wrote:

Any consistent set of rules can be used to define a game. Existing rules are great because:

1. they create a game that everybody enjoys a lot (except for Monster)

2. there is wonderful chess tradition of few hundred years (for which Monster expressed no respect because of "silly rules" but that's his problem)

New rules create game of unknown nature (and Monster ignored suggestion to try it as a variant for testing) and it will cut with tradition (which is unacceptable for me and many others).

These simple arguments Monster has left without answer in the past so I decided to give it another try.

Here is a perfect specimen of the typical "current rules are the rules so they are the best" type of post.

Each point is totally vague. "makes a fun game" (because if we change the stalemate result from .5-.5 to 1-0 the game would become unplayable and totally boring.
Addresses nothing to do with the rules themselves...
Talks about totally irrelevant appeals to authority (tradition).

Monster, you sound just like pushy salesman trying to sell something nobody needs.

What's so vague about "chess is fun"? I have no clue if your "Monsterchess" will be fun and I have no intention to spend my time trying it out.

Chess tradition has nothing to do with authority but everything to do with fun again. Because I like to play a game that has history, theory, books, millions games in databases, clubs, competitions etc.

You fail to convince once again...

Avatar of Matthew11
Matthew11
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1011
TheGrobe wrote:

I see it as more akin to a fortress position than to checkmate, so a draw seems a much more logical result.

I see your point, but in stalemate the only moves possible (if any) are losing but cannot be made because the rule that keeps you from sacrificing your king. 

 

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.

Players should be awarded for limiting an oppenent, not punished.

Also consider this:

Avatar of theoreticalboy
theoreticalboy
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1012

I think that's the least logical application of logic I've ever seen Laughing

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1013

Consider what?  Checkmate?  I think the rules are clear on that one, or are we going to dispute it as well?

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1014
Matthew11 wrote:

Players should be awarded for limiting an oppenent, not punished.

Sure, how's half a point sound?

On the flip-side, it's quite easy to make a case that player's should be awarded for avoiding being checkmated....

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1015
Matthew11 wrote:

I see your point, but in stalemate the only moves possible (if any) are losing but cannot be made because the rule that keeps you from sacrificing your king. 

No, they're not losing at all, the game is drawn.  There are no moves possible and not even because two rules are in opposition but because the game is over.

Avatar of netzach
netzach
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1016

Super checkmate-diagram! :-)

Avatar of AlCzervik
AlCzervik
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1017
theoreticalboy wrote:

I think that's the least logical application of logic I've ever seen 

So far...

Avatar of bigpoison
bigpoison
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1018
TheGrobe wrote:

It's akin to blaming the controller for your video game shortcomings.

The computer cheated.

Avatar of LeVigneron
LeVigneron
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1019

Excuse me this is my first post so be indulgent but may I ask, I Thought the instant you consider chess rules questionnable by :

1 . means of comparison to some non-immuable ideas such as real entities.

2 . wanting to have advantages/disadvantages for certain time controlled games. ( different time control = different rules )

3 . saying that "this random rule" isn't in contradiction with "this one" but could help saying that stalemate isn't the right way.

Were all ways of questionning that were irrelevant because chess isn't a set of pieces and a board, chess is an idea and this idea comes with rules that are not in contradiction with each other, and follow pure mathematical logic.

Now if you are going to demonstrate in pure logic that there is a contradiction in Chess then i shall listen. But if people are just going to keep babbling about why they should or should not think about creating a new game based on chess where stalemate has been abolished then there's just no point. All that will achieve is dividing a perfectly fine community.

Else i'm open to pure logic so fire on !

Avatar of PawnPromoter316
PawnPromoter316
Sep 4, 2012
0
#1020

The OP's position that it's 100 percent the responsibility of a player to make sure he can move is absurd. The only way that could be accomplished is if the player said to his opponent, "No, don't move there; I won't have a legal move. You have to play a different move so I'll be able to move."

Maybe that'd work in solitaire chess but one player is not responsible for another player's moves.

As for allowing the king to be captured, that would totally invalidate all the previous games of chess that have been played - much more so (obviously) than simply saying stalemate should be a win for the player who delivers it. And it shouldn't be a win because the player who leaves his opponent without a legal move should be punished for his carelessness. For the last time (from me), the stalemated player is 0 percent responsible for not being able to move