Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
Oh, dear. Off topics - the graveyard for threads. I guess chess.com is convinced making stalemate +1 is no longer considered worthy of being classified as a chess topic. Instead, it's relegated to threads about Star Trek and video games. Oh dear
The way this has gone, it would have been more entertaining if it were about video games.
Then again, we would all be idiots if we didn't agree with monster about which rules should be changed in space invaders.
zborg wrote:
We will soon need an Excel Spreadsheet to keep track of all these subsidiary conjectures and syllogisms. This is getting seriously obtuse.
Bertrand Russell please come back from your grave.
@Monster is calling for you. Pleading for your return.
He believes that 13,000 view (somehow) makes him right. But only your return to life will satisfy him, and calm him.
The same thing that draws me to this thread, is the same thing which pushes me away... people fasinate me, but not in a good way.
What Im confirming from this thread, something Ive known a long time ago, is how terrible the average persons logic is.. How their logic is based on what they want to believe and rationalising to that... instead of establishing what they ought to think thru analysing the thing away from the heat of the moment.
Look at what this guy wrote:
"He believes that 13,000 view (somehow) makes him right."
[Actually it was 33, 000 (this also happens alarmingly often, simplest of mistakes)]
But my main point is ... when I posted those stats it was to disprove the claim someone made that "nobody is listening" not that "Im right because people are viewing".
The guy fails to make this simplest of connections. But he is ULTRA confident his reasoning is crystal clear on stalemate.
The girl couple of posts ago claims "there is no stalemate rule" because she cant connect 2 items and deduce a very simple piece of reasoning...
Not to mention that she only reads the first 2 rules and ignores the rest... once the conclusion [which was wrong] she wanted was reached, she stopped searching/thinking.
Then she posts about how stalemate can be deduced from 1.2+1.3 (which is indeed the case).. and pretends she was right all along [ignoring the fact she said stalemate doesnt exist as a rule] (in other words she doesnt care about stalemate at all (if she did she would concede, and say you were right... ie take responsibility [the thing I mentioned women are not good with, and she flared up]), she is only here to win an arguement and boost her ego).
For me this thread has been about stalemate, but also about people.. their motivations, thinking processes, etc.. its interesting, but also depressing at the same time.
Yes, it's very depressing how some people (Ok, one person) can't see that stalemate is the fault of the person who delivers it
There once was a player named Monster
Whose view on stalemate was quite bonkers
He wanted draws to be wins
But advanced logic so thin
That his argument was fully conquered
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
zborg wrote:
We will soon need an Excel Spreadsheet to keep track of all these subsidiary conjectures and syllogisms. This is getting seriously obtuse.
Bertrand Russell please come back from your grave.
@Monster is calling for you. Pleading for your return.
He believes that 13,000 view (somehow) makes him right. But only your return to life will satisfy him, and calm him.
The girl couple of posts ago claims "there is no stalemate rule" because she cant connect 2 items and deduce a very simple piece of reasoning...
Not to mention that she only reads the first 2 rules and ignores the rest... once the conclusion [which was wrong] she wanted was reached, she stopped searching/thinking.
Then she posts about how stalemate can be deduced from 1.2+1.3 (which is indeed the case).. and pretends she was right all along [ignoring the fact she said stalemate doesnt exist as a rule] (in other words she doesnt care about stalemate at all (if she did she would concede, and say you were right... ie take responsibility [the thing I mentioned women are not good with, and she flared up]), she is only here to win an arguement and boost her ego).
For me this thread has been about stalemate, but also about people.. their motivations, thinking processes, etc.. its interesting, but also depressing at the same time.
you're wrong on both counts in red.
i've posted just the facts as they are, while feeling it would be a miracle for you to examine and understand them the way 99.9999% of people would.
i didn't realise you thought i was interested in arguing!
i guess that's been your entire drive.
anyway, great thread so far, i hope it keeps going ...
wait a minute dude, all that balony in blue ... is that the result of your "logic" ?
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
Oh, dear. Off topics - the graveyard for threads. I guess chess.com is convinced making stalemate +1 is no longer considered worthy of being classified as a chess topic. Instead, it's relegated to threads about Star Trek and video games. Oh dear
Well -- Pac Man was great :)
TornadoChaser wrote:
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
Oh, dear. Off topics - the graveyard for threads. I guess chess.com is convinced making stalemate +1 is no longer considered worthy of being classified as a chess topic. Instead, it's relegated to threads about Star Trek and video games. Oh dear
Well -- Pac Man was great :)
agreed, but tron/snake/nibbles whatever you wana call it is even better...
The game has real strategy to it. search for "fl tron" its a terrific flash/browser multiplayer game... very addictive.
So the consensus from what I have gleened is,
stalemate cannot literally be abolished.
Making stalemate a "winning" alternative would transform the objective of Chess into who can stalemate whom, changing the nature of the game.
If you cannot avoid stalemating your opponent you might be a doofus.
"Chess anyone ? but just keep that stalemate bolluxology out of it!!!"
"No stalemates!!! smashin' ... be there in 20 minutes, me gran's callin' me for me tea!!"
DonJuan_DeMarco wrote:
"No stalemates!!! smashin' ... be there in 20 minutes, me gran's callin' me for me tea!!"
Just SO many random posts of supermodels on CHESS websites! It's a wonder we have even a passing thought about stalemates! 
Chess anyone? Without stalemate, of course...
That explains me why you want to eat the rules of chess.
Why did they "draw" this game I wonder? I had 17.0 seconds (roughly) of time and it was about 1 second for my opponent! I CLEARLY see I was doomed had it been a game not of the 1 Minute variety (this was a 1/0 tournament game). 
TornadoChaser wrote:
Why did they "draw" this game I wonder? I had 17.0 seconds (roughly) of time and it was about 1 second for my opponent! I CLEARLY see I was doomed had it been a game not of the 1 Minute variety (this was a 1/0 tournament game).
The game was probably drawn because White used all of his time and Black had insufficient material to mate. The question is what does that have to do with stalemate.
TornadoChaser wrote:
Why did they "draw" this game I wonder? I had 17.0 seconds (roughly) of time and it was about 1 second for my opponent! I CLEARLY see I was doomed had it been a game not of the 1 Minute variety (this was a 1/0 tournament game).
Most likely your opponent ran out of time.
Presubably this game would be a win for Black under Monster's rules as well? I mean, black may not have sufficient material to mate, but there is a legal series of moves that would lead to stalemate.
What about King v. King, it's not a gauranteed draw anymore because one player might move his King to a square where it can be taken. Should it still be an automatic draw? If yes, what about K v. K+N or K v. K+B?