there is no superior side in K+minor piece V King
wanna take black in this position ? i'll take white,
you're effectively a piece up
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
TMIMITW wrote:
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.
EXACTLY! The only "rule" for Space Invaders should be: don't let people at Atari make a 2600 version; it will be an abomination 
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
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.
I'll check that out! Thanks! 
The invaders getting faster and faster as their numbers dwindle should be abolished. I died that way once.
still though! gave us a great excuse to smash the arcade windows!
DonJuan_DeMarco wrote:
there is no superior side in K+minor piece V King
wanna take black in this position ? i'll take white,
you're effectively a piece up
If you had read the posts You would have realized that we were talking about Monsters' perposal. King + Knight vs King would be a forced win. When one side has a forced win they are the superior side.
Monsters proposal is a monstrosity!
Did you bother to consider my complete post which was in response to yours ???
you dudes are trying to isolate a subset and make them an exception to the overall set.
"if i had read the posts"!!!! blah blah blah ... eat your honey
DonJuan_DeMarco wrote:
Monsters proposal is a monstrosity!
Did you bother to consider my complete post which was in response to yours ???
you dudes are trying to isolate a subset and make them an exception to the overall set.
what ??
"if i had read the posts"!!!! blah blah blah ... eat your honey
TheGrobe wrote:
The invaders getting faster and faster as their numbers dwindle should be abolished. I died that way once.
#1120
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
DonJuan_DeMarco wrote:
Monsters proposal is a monstrosity!
Did you bother to consider my complete post which was in response to yours ???
you dudes are trying to isolate a subset and make them an exception to the overall set.
what ??
"if i had read the posts"!!!! blah blah blah ... eat your honey
i'll put that into plain english for you later, darling.
This forum's getting harder to find than the solution to a mate in 10 lol.
Monster - In all seriousness, and after two months and 1,271 posts, can't you see why stalemate should not be a win?
The player who delivers stalemate and forces his opponent to violate the rules of chess needs to be punished! Why is that so hard to understand?!
It's actually generous to give a 1/2 point to the player who delivers stalemate. Stalemate, in my opinion, should be a loss more than it should be a win!
Maybe I'll start a forum: "Why Stalemate Should Be A Loss." That's more logical than making it a win!
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
Monster - In all seriousness, and after two months and 1,271 posts, can't you see why stalemate should not be a win?
I doubt it. As far as I can tell, he's wholly convinced that the reason his proposal is not getting accepted by his fellow chess players is that they simply don't understand it. It doesn't seem to occur to him that his argument is flawed .
This explains why all he has been doing for a good majority of the thread is rephrasing the same arguement over and over again.
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
This forum's getting harder to find than the solution to a mate in 10 lol.
Monster - In all seriousness, and after two months and 1,271 posts, can't you see why stalemate should not be a win?
The player who delivers stalemate and forces his opponent to violate the rules of chess needs to be punished!Why is that so hard to understand?!
Ive explained this in crystal clear HD detail, 3 times, to you already.
Go back and read them again, because Im not typing it out again.
Do you seriously not understand that what defines the responsibility is the result we assign to stalemate? We are debating who should have the responsibility.. not under the current rules who has the responsibility.
It's actually generous to give a 1/2 point to the player who delivers stalemate. Stalemate, in my opinion, should be a loss more than it should be a win!
DonJuan_DeMarco wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
DonJuan_DeMarco wrote:
Monsters proposal is a monstrosity!
Did you bother to consider my complete post which was in response to yours ???
you dudes are trying to isolate a subset and make them an exception to the overall set.
what ??
"if i had read the posts"!!!! blah blah blah ... eat your honey
i'll put that into plain english for you later, darling.
Subset of what?
Are you related to the grobe by any chance?
Trying to sound clever and sophisticated using really vague and obfuscated terms and then when I call your bull$hit you run like a rabbit just like the grobe
Yes, Monster, but don't *you* see that what I'm arguing is that the person who delivers stalemate is the one responsible for it? And because he's the one responsible for it, he deserves to get only a half point.
You're right that the crux of the matter is who is responsible for it. I think it's obvious that the player who made the last move before the stalemate position is responsible, because if he played a different move, stalemate wouldn't result. It is that player who *creates* the stalemate position; why should he not be responsible for his creation.
Forget what the current rule is. Let's say we're in the days when the stalemate position was just discovered. Your idea that the stalemated player's clock should run out wouldn't be possible since chess clocks weren't in use then.
So you have one player who will argue that he shouldn't lose because he's not in checkmate and his opponent has left him without a legal move.
Then you will have the other player claiming material superiority and saying his opponent (the stalemated player) shouldn't win because it would be impossible for him to checkmate the player with material superiority.
So they split the point.
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
The player who delivers stalemate and forces his opponent to violate the rules of chess needs to be punished! Why is that so hard to understand?!
Just another point on this... if you look at all sports and games... the idea is we have rules, and pretty much all of the time you are trying to force your opponent to break the rules after which you get rewarded, not punished. In tennis there is the net, and the out lines, you try to force your opponent to violate the rule "hit above the net and in the court", in sumo they have the ring. In soccer, hockey etc they have a goal line.....
This is the point... Im forcing you to break the rule... Im not the one breaking the rule. Therefore YOU should be punished , not me.
The result doesn't define the responsibility. I've said over and over that the player who delivers stalemate is *responsible* for it because he left his opponent without a legal move. I *have never* said that the player who delivers stalemate is responsible for it because he loses half a point.
If you want to truly abolish stalemate, then you have to permit the king to move into check (and be captured next move.) That is much more of a radical change than you think and would make chess much less elegant than it is today.
Is this where we're in confusion? Are you advocating that the king be permitted to move into check and for the king to be captured?
Sorry if you've been saying this all along, but my enthusiasm for going through this thread in its entirety isn't there
But the player in your analogy has a *choice* of whether or not to break the rule. His destiny is still in his hands. In tennis, you can hit the ball in such a way that it's likely I will hit the ball into the net, but it's not a 100 percent certainty. I could adjust my racquet in such a way that I can avoid hitting the ball into the net. Same with sumo - you may be trying to force me out of the ring, but I still have the ability to prevent it. My destiny is still in my hands.
In stalemate, the stalemated player has no opportunity, no chance, not to break the rule.
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 not, what about K v. K+N or K v. K+B?
K v. K+N and K v. K+B would both be sufficient material to stalemate. In fact I think that K+N vs. K the superior side can actually force a stalemate which is more or less the way K+2Ns vs. K+P games are won. One knight holds up the pawn while the King and one knight work to get the opposing King in a stalemate (or rather one move from a stalemate). The other knight moves allowing the pawn to move and goes over and delivers the checkmate while the pawn moves forward.