Stalemate needs to be abolished... - Chess Forums - Page 55

Monster_with_no_Name

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1081

TheGrobe wrote:

Let me save you both the trouble of having to wait:

You're both idiots who couldn't possibly comprehend the depths of Monster's intellect.

Please respond to #1120

Monster_with_no_Name

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1082

uri65 wrote:

Monster, you have never answered posts #1068 and #1099 by me and #1102
by Kens_Mom. Say something, don't disappoint me.

#1068
Stalmate shouldnt be change because chess is -> fun
Then you say you dont know what my variant would be like (I dont know why because Ive described it in detail in post #16) then you go on and say you have no intention of trying it!
thats your argument ?

So your argument is from ignorance (about my variant) and appeal to authority (the way things are/rules are the rules/tradition)

And you're angry I didnt respond to that ??
You're saying you *dont* want to even think about or try my variant... doesnt this disqualify you from the debate automatically ?

#1099
#1102

I hope you understand why Im not responding to these equally illogical posts.

AlCzervik

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1083

You know you want to call him an idiot!

Kens_Mom

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1084

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

#1102

I hope you understand why Im not responding to these equally illogical posts.

How else would you determine whether one set of rules is better than another? The answer to the question is pretty subjective, much like if I were to ask whether the set of rules for Chinese chess is better than those of Japanese chess. Since both the current system and your proposed no-stalemate system create functioning games, the only real way to weigh and balance the value of each system is to see which one derives more enjoyment from the chess playing community. Otherwise you're just comparing apples to oranges.

Sorry if I sounded illogical to you, but my intention was to argue my position on your terms

PawnPromoter316

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1085

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

MarvinTheRobot wrote:

You were given 50 pages of counter-arguments. Please stop being deliberately ignorant.The rest is not stupid. You are again going ad hominem, which proves my point.

Please give JUST 1 of my logical errors! It shouldnt take long right?

Can't resist lol. You said stalemate was the fault of the player who was stalemated. That is illogical and false, as you've been told countless times.

But you can't admit it because once you do, your argument for making stalemate a win falls apart like a house of cards.

That's the Achilees' heel of your argument and there's no getting around it, no matter how many insults you spew.

Your argument's been busted for weeks now. I suspect people continue to post here because you're a source of amusement and entertainment

PawnPromoter316

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1086

netzach wrote:

Wow! the typefaces are getting bigger & the colours become bolder.

Monster is serious in intent (Change Stalemate Rule in Chess) else likely wouldn't have devoted so much of his time to this topic.

''Idiots & sheepies'' are fairly soft put-downs compared with how others are currently expressing themselves. :-)

Mr. Civility strikes again!

Monster_with_no_Name

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1087

Kens_Mom wrote:

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

#1102

I hope you understand why Im not responding to these equally illogical posts.

How else would you determine whether one set of rules is better than another? The answer to the question is pretty subjective, much like if I were to ask whether the set of rules for Chinese chess is better than those of Japanese chess. Since both the current system and your proposed no-stalemate system create functioning games, the only real way to weigh the value of each system is to see which one derives more enjoyment from the chess playing community. Otherwise you're just comparing apples to oranges.

Sorry if I sounded illogical to you, but my intention was to argue my position on your terms

I dont think its so "subjective" (practical speaking)

Consider....

1. when its your turn, you must move (stalemate then comes along as an "exception rule" tacked on very badly, precicely the moment you should be punished for not moving)

2. the clock rule already exists, your turn, cant move, clock runs out.. (stalemate rule again is an exception rule (badly tacked on) to this too! Again stalemate is not needed and is not elegant)

3. The stalemate rule means I am responsible for your moves as well! I have to spend *my time* calculating your moves so you can move about freely! This is not fair.

4. stalemate affects many endgames where one side has a signficant advantage and turns those into draws. So to win a game you need quite a large advantage. This is not fair, and makes the game *less* exciting (more draws)

What are your reasons *for* the stalemate rule ?

Im being so clear, lucid, logical, my points are so ingenious, how can you people resist the beauty of my mind ?? unbelievable...!

Monster_with_no_Name

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1088

PawnPromoter316 wrote:

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

MarvinTheRobot wrote:

You were given 50 pages of counter-arguments. Please stop being deliberately ignorant.The rest is not stupid. You are again going ad hominem, which proves my point.

Please give JUST 1 of my logical errors! It shouldnt take long right?

Can't resist lol. You said stalemate was the fault of the player who was stalemated. That is illogical and false, as you've been told countless times.

If its possible for you to hold 2 ideas in your head simultaneously ... we can sort this out quickly. The responsibility *depends on which rule set we are using*

stalemate = 1/2 -> its my resposibility to ensure you have legal moves *or else* I lose 1/2 a point.

stalemate = 1-0 -> its not my responsibility to ensure you have legal moves *because* I get all the points and am not punished if you cant move... you are fully punished (therefore it was your responsibilty)

Let me put it another way for you... stalemate was the fault of the player who was stalemated (because he is punished for it, and the deliverer is not)

Im sorry I cant make this any clearer (ps it is already crystal clear).
It saddens me that you dont get this. Please be a little patient and think it thru.

But you can't admit it because once you do, your argument for making stalemate a win falls apart like a house of cards.

That's the Achilees' heel of your argument and there's no getting around it, no matter how many insults you spew.

Your argument's been busted for weeks now. I suspect people continue to post here because you're a source of amusement and entertainment

PawnPromoter316

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1089

Good grief. A chess player always has to calculate his opponent's moves on his own time - from the opening to the end of the game. Another false statement from you. By making stalemate a win, you're making the player about to be stalemated responsible for his opponent's moves - the very thing you object to! It's not the opponent's "turn" when he's stalemated because the game is over. C'mon! Usually you put up better posts than that last one. Drink some coffee and get back in the game!

PawnPromoter316

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1090

I understand what you're saying, but the player who creates a position in which his opponent cannot move should be punished for doing so. Therefore the current rule is completely fair and logical and there's no need to change it.

By using different rules, you're absolving a player who has a material advantage in the endgame (let's say king vs. king and pawn) from ever having to consider his opponent's moves, which makes chess easier and contradicts the thought processes that now exist for the entire game

PawnPromoter316

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1091

One last thought before I untrack the thread (though I must say your more civil tone is certainly appreciated):

By making stalemate a win, you're needlessly shortening chess games for what would be the point of ever playing out a king vs. king and pawn endgame or even an endgame where one side has a significant material advantage.

This makes chess more into a "points" game, like gin rummy, and less like a game where players continue to battle on through an endgame.

Take it easy...

Monster_with_no_Name

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1092

PawnPromoter316 wrote:

Good grief. A chess player always has to calculate his opponent's moves on his own time - from the opening to the end of the game. haha we calculate the opponents moves to protect our own pieces! *not to protect the opponents pieces from ours* (with stalemate im calculating so your pieces can still move, Im protecting you, silly) Another false statement from you. By making stalemate a win, you're making the player about to be stalemated responsible for his opponent's moves what ??????? explain this....this is the most bizzare thing on this thread to date ... - the very thing you object to! It's not the opponent's "turn" when he's stalemated because the game is over. We've been over this.. it was his turn, he couldnt move, there is a terrible excpetion rule which saves him precicely the moment he should be punished. Technically speaking the rule is 'logically consistent' but so is the bad excpetion rule that you put the bishop up your butt on move 29... that is also logically consistent, but its a stupid rule none the less. C'mon! Usually you put up better posts than that last one. Drink some coffee and get back in the game!

Kens_Mom

Sep 5, 2012

0

#1093

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

I dont think its so "subjective" (practical speaking)

Consider....

1. when its your turn, you must move (stalemate then comes along as an "exception rule" tacked on very badly, precicely the moment you should be punished for not moving)

I don't see what your issue is with exceptions to rules, and I also don't see why the stalemated player "should be punished." The stalemate criteria are made perfectly clear within the rules of the game. You make it sound as though stalemate is some hidden loop in the system that losing players can ulitize to draw their games. This might seem like the case to beginners, but experienced players should be aware of the concept and how it may affect the outcome of their games. The fact that the player without legal moves goes unpunished is simply the rules working as they were intended.

2. the clock rule already exists, your turn, cant move, clock runs out.. (stalemate rule again is an exception rule (badly tacked on) to this too! Again stalemate is not needed and is not elegant)

This isn't really an arguement against stalemate, just an elaboration on your proposed change. Also, I've explained in post 1050 why time constraints should not be tied with stalemates in the way that you suggest.

3. The stalemate rule means I am responsible for your moves as well! I have to spend *my time* calculating your moves so you can move about freely! This is not fair.

Yes, in chess you often need to spend time calculating moves. This includes your opponent's moves as well if you want further insight into the position. I don't think this is a problem since that's basically what you do in chess.

4. stalemate affects many endgames where one side has a signficant advantage and turns those into draws. So to win a game you need quite a large advantage. This is not fair, and makes the game *less* exciting (more draws)

Yes, you do need some amount of advantage (sufficicent material to mate, etc.) in order to win a game of chess. That's intentional, and the game is fine that way. You also speak as though draws are inherently boring, which is not at all true. Like others have pointed out, is only the premature "grandmaster draws" that are boring. In fact, a game with a win/loss outcome can just as well be boring. This is why people often throw around the phrase "if you think draws are boring, you miss out on a lot that chess has to offer." My point is that reducing the frequency of draws doesn't necessarily make the game more exiting. A draw is just the result of the game, and says nothing about whether what took place was exciting or not.

What are your reasons *for* the stalemate rule ?

I actually have several in mind, mostly repeating what others have already said several times over in this thread. However, the fact that the current system of rules is completely functional and chess players prefer the current system over yours is sufficient reason to keep the rules as is.

Im being so clear, lucid, logical, my points are so ingenious, how can you people resist the beauty of my mind ?? unbelievable...!

Monster_with_no_Name

Sep 6, 2012

0

#1094

Kens_Mom wrote:

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

I dont think its so "subjective" (practical speaking)

Consider....

1. when its your turn, you must move (stalemate then comes along as an "exception rule" tacked on very badly, precicely the moment you should be punished for not moving)

I don't see what your issue is with exceptions to rules, I dont have a problem with exception rules... I have a problem with bad exception rules. eg "bishop moves diagonally except on move 29 it goes up your butt" this is obviously bad... Castling and pawns moving 2 at a time are good exception rules because they are shortcuts for what people would have done anyway (eg move pawns up to control center, or "castling by hand") Note also ! how the en passant rule is an "exception rule to the exception rule" of the pawn moving 2 spaces at once to correct for the problem it does cause! Also the king cant castle thru check is also and exception rule to the excpetion rule of castling to fix the problem it causes..

and I also don't see why the stalemated player "should be punished." Because of the main tenant of chess "you must move, even if it means you will lose, you cannot pass your turn, if you refuse to move then your clock runs out" to then turn around and say "oh, but now you cant move because youve cramped yourself to that point... ok fine game is terminated you dont have to move and you split the points doesnt make sense. This final position should not be considered a position of equality. I can move you cant. The stalemate criteria are made perfectly clear within the rules of the game. You make it sound as though stalemate is some hidden loop in the system [The bishop to but rule could be a rule of the game too doesnt mean its good] .. that losing players can ulitize to draw their games. This might seem like the case to beginners, but experienced players [stalemate punishes elite players as well, although there its not simple traps but for eg K+P(wing pawn)+B v K+B .... top level players usually grind down lower rated players, stalemates impact on the endgame makes it a lot harder for a 2700 to grind down a 2400 for eg. ] should be aware of the concept and how it may affect the outcome of their games. The fact that the player without legal moves goes unpunished is simply the rules working as they were intended.

2. the clock rule already exists, your turn, cant move, clock runs out.. (stalemate rule again is an exception rule (badly tacked on) to this too! Again stalemate is not needed and is not elegant)

This isn't really an arguement against stalemate, just an elaboration on your proposed change (which is an arguement against stalemate). Also, I've explained in post 1050 why time constraints should not be tied with stalemates in the way that you suggest. I think the most consistent and logical consequence of "you must move and not pass your move rule, and your clock runs while its your turn (and you run out you lose)" should end with stalemate = 1-0 (ie a stalemate rule that carries these rules to their natural conclusion, as opposed to current stalemate which is the *exception/opposite* to the natural conclusions of this rule, ie *it turns these 2 rules upside down!*)

3. The stalemate rule means I am responsible for your moves as well! I have to spend *my time* calculating your moves so you can move about freely! This is not fair.

Yes, in chess you often need to spend time calculating moves. This includes your opponent's moves as well if you want further insight into the position. I don't think this is a problem since that's basically what you do in chess. Yes but as i mentioned, i shouldnt have to calculate to protect your pieces!, to make sure you have enough freedom and space to dance about. After all this is a competition, a fight.

4. stalemate affects many endgames where one side has a signficant advantage and turns those into draws. So to win a game you need quite a large advantage. This is not fair, and makes the game *less* exciting (more draws)

Yes, you do need some amount of advantage (sufficicent material to mate, etc.) in order to win a game of chess. That's intentional, and the game is fine that way. You also speak as though draws are inherently boring (no not boring... just draws by stalemate are bad), which is not at all true. Like others have pointed out, is only the premature "grandmaster draws" that are boring. In fact, a game with a win/loss outcome can just as well be boring. This is why people often throw around the phrase "if you think draws are boring, you miss out on a lot that chess has to offer." My point is that reducing the frequency of draws doesn't necessarily make the game more exiting. A draw is just the result of the game, and says nothing about whether what took place was exciting or not.

What are your reasons *for* the stalemate rule ?

I actually have several in mind, mostly repeating what others have already said several times over in this thread. However, the fact that the current system of rules is completely functional and chess players prefer the current system over yours is sufficient reason to keep the rules as is.

Im being so clear, lucid, logical, my points are so ingenious, how can you people resist the beauty of my mind ?? unbelievable...!

TornadoChaser

Sep 6, 2012

0

#1095

As a new player, I have been both amazed and outraged by sudden stalemates. More often than not (making stupid lightning moves) I have been amazed that I had any right to ANY points after making bad decision after bad decision. All I was doing was fighting to 0:00, with little chance of surviving and ZERO chance of a sudden reversal. All the same, during a few games I was methodically picking off opposing pieces with plenty of time to spare when suddenly a "stalemate" leaps out with a twist; I still don't understand why. I will read the rules carefully and review the games..and ultimately fix this problem.

CalamityChristie

Sep 6, 2012

0

#1096

there's someone who can learn.

uri65

Sep 6, 2012

0

#1097

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

uri65 wrote:

Monster, you have never answered posts #1068 and #1099 by me and #1102
by Kens_Mom. Say something, don't disappoint me.

#1068
Stalmate shouldnt be change because chess is -> fun
Then you say you dont know what my variant would be like (I dont know why because Ive described it in detail in post #16) then you go on and say you have no intention of trying it!
thats your argument ?

So your argument is from ignorance (about my variant) and appeal to authority (the way things are/rules are the rules/tradition)

And you're angry I didnt respond to that ??
You're saying you *dont* want to even think about or try my variant... doesnt this disqualify you from the debate automatically ?

#1099
#1102

I hope you understand why Im not responding to these equally illogical posts.

Every theory has to be tested in practice. To test your rules will requre me at least one year of playing to decide if I like them. Do you really want me to invest so much time in a new game when I already have a game to play that is guaranteed fun?

And how about fun of learning master games, books, going to chess competitions? What do you have to suggest me as a replacement?

You know what, Monster, I'll try to go as much as I can towards your argument . Suppose these are possible advantages of your rules:

1. Rules are shorter

2. Less draws

Well, let's see. 1 is irrelevant for somebody who has learned to play 40 years ago. As for 2 my personal drawing rate is below 15%. And even on top level there is always enough exciting games (including exciting draws). So I have nothing to gain from change of rules. But I have a lot to loose. May be it will be less fun because the game might become more materialistic and dull as it was suggested by someone. I find defence by stalemate really beautiful and this will be gone. I've mentioned chess tradition before and it makes up to 50% percent of fun for me personally. So I have nothing to gain, lots to loose. Sorry I don't buy it.

Monster_with_no_Name

Sep 6, 2012

0

#1098

tonites bed time story by DonJuan_DeMarco :

there's someone who can learn.... how to be a good little sheeple, who follows the rules because they are the rules and doesnt ever question them. Even though the rules make little sense to him ("I have been both amazed and outraged by sudden stalemates") he will ignore his intuition that the rule is stupid and condition himself with 1000 games until his brain adjusts to the current rules of stalemate. After his brainwashing is complete he will come back and say "the rules are perfect the way they are, they make the game for FUN" or some other stupid rationalization like that. Then he will sleep a full 8 hours of untroubled sleep. The end

uri65

Sep 6, 2012

0

#1099

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

tonites bed time story by DonJuan_DeMarco :

there's someone who can learn.... how to be a good little sheeple, who follows the rules because they are the rules and doesnt ever question them. Even though the rules make little sense to him ("I have been both amazed and outraged by sudden stalemates") he will ignore his intuition that the rule is stupid and condition himself with 1000 games until his brain adjusts to the current rules of stalemate. After his brainwashing is complete he will come back and say "the rules are perfect the way they are, they make the game for FUN" or some other stupid rationalization like that.

Games are played for FUN. That's the only valid criteria.

Then he will sleep a full 8 hours of untroubled sleep. The end

TornadoChaser

Sep 6, 2012

0

#1100

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

tonites bed time story by DonJuan_DeMarco :

there's someone who can learn.... how to be a good little sheeple, who follows the rules because they are the rules and doesnt ever question them. Even though the rules make little sense to him ("I have been both amazed and outraged by sudden stalemates") he will ignore his intuition that the rule is stupid and condition himself with 1000 games until his brain adjusts to the current rules of stalemate. After his brainwashing is complete he will come back and say "the rules are perfect the way they are, they make the game for FUN" or some other stupid rationalization like that. Then he will sleep a full 8 hours of untroubled sleep. The end

Wow. You're that insecure you write nursery rhymes about other people? You think YOU have even the most ridiculously remote chance of brainwashing ANYTHING? What a splendid little "rebel" you THINK you are. What a magnificent little wretch you have proven yourself to be! I question what you're still doing hanging around here. If you have figured out the World (apparently you believe you have -- in which case you're either an abomination or more of a sheep than you claim I am) then keep it to yourself, go sit somewhere quietly, and die. That is the only "end" to me. You seem to fancy yourself an accomplished writer too. That's what I call STUPID. Rationalize that Genius. But do it for "FUN," you James Dean you. And when you respond, remember, be as eloquent and absolute in your command of the Queen's English as you can POSSIBLY be; you'll be a legend in your own mind.