Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
zxzyz wrote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.. and so too is the lack of it.
The monster sees himself as beautiful and his ruleset as logical but the others see him as a troll and his rules as a muddified version of a beautiful game.
What the monster does not understand is that even his version of the rules has been proposed at the chessvariants site at some point, and buried along with the other chess variants there. One only has to look there at chessvariants.org.
And here are links to some other very similar proposals:
Stalemate chessCapture-the-King -- this one is almost same as monster's!
and also: Capture the Scepter
You have not been reading the thread or you know that it has been mentioned by monster and others that making stalemate a win has been poposed by many including Nimzovitch and Lasker. That the proposal has not been buried but is very much alive currently championed by GM Kaufman.
Sep 11, 2012
0
#1264
I've read Lasker's thoughts but I would be interested to read Nimzovitch's writings on this subject. Can you provide the source?
Blake says "you have not been reading the 67 pages of a dead thread"
i'll bet he's read the whole thing
He wrote 1/3rd of it.
batgirl wrote:
I've read Lasker's thoughts but I would be interested to read Nimzovitch's writings on this subject. Can you provide the source?
It has been 50 years since I read it. He doesn't spend more than a paragraph on it. It is in one of his books, might be "My System". Which ever book it was in, I no longer have it.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
I dont see the irony..
Religious claims are such they require evidence to prove them.
There needs to be a basis for claims.
Here we are debating a system of rules... there is no "evidence"/belief to speak of. All the facts are on the table.
My system of rules, from a logical/technical standpoint (in fact any standpoint) are just as valid as the current system of rules.
The rest of the debate is about showing which system of rules is the more elegant (mine) and produces the better game (mine). Of course this is a relatively "subjective" question... I have argued my points (ie the basis for why I prefer those rules) better than any on the other side, who mainly come with lame arguements like ..... well you know them already.
I don't get it. You've now admitted that the issue is subjective, yet you've also reached to the conclusion that your system is, without a doubt, superior to the current one regardless of the overwhelming preference for the latter by other chess players. You might want to look up the word "subjective," because it's definitely not what you think it means.
And to answer the questions "Which system is more elegant?" and "Which system creates a better game?," people have said on the very first pages of this thread that stalemates as draws creates beautiful endgame complications and offers the losing side a defensive resource, keeping the struggle alive in a game that can otherwise be won on autopilot. These are just two points out of many, and they're perfectly good answers to the two questions you've asked. How can you just dismiss these as lame? Moreover, how can you state that you've argued your points better than anybody else? If anything you've just been more tenacious about it. And by "tenacious," I mean repetitive.
According to Monster's "result determines responsibility" theory, the player who delivers stalemate only bears responsibility for the stalemate because he gets 1/2 a point, and, if he got a full point, he suddenly would have no responsibility for stalemate.
So let's change the rules so a black win gets you +2. I guess that would mean the black player who wins has suddenly played a game twice as good as a previous game where black got +1. Why? Because he got +2; that's why!
Hey, let's make it +10 for a win with black! Then we'd have the enjoyment of playing out black wins by GMs that are 10 times as good as all the past and current black wins. They have to be 10 times as good cause they're getting 10 times the points!
And to think Monster was calling everyone else an idiot.
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
You seem to think that by making stalemate +1 you can avoid responsibility for creating the stalemate position. if stalemate is 1-0 it would be my responsibility to try to make it happen to you, and it would be my responsibility to avoid it happening to me. This is the contract we enter into before the game. If stalemate = 1-0 is it your responsibility to ensure I have legal moves left? But you are still responsible for it - regardless of whether you get a point, three points or five points. You're mired in the absurd proposition that an outside arbiter (a rule or change-of-rule) determines responsibility for what occurs on a chessboard.
The result doesn't define the responsibility. It does. if stalemate= 1/2 then I shoulder 1/2 the responsibility. If stalemate = 1-0, I have no responsibility to ensure you have moves left, because Im not punished, infact Im rewarded for it (ie 0 responsibility for ensuring you have moves left). On the other hand you are serverly punished (a full point) for not haveing moves left .... who can you blame? yourself, you knew that the rule was stalemate = 1-0 (ie your responsibility)
Your type's in red in the above comment.
I've already explained as have many others why the player who delivers stalemate is responsible for it - he and he alone left his opponent without a legal move by virtue of his last move. You're still trying to tie the result to the responsibility instead of looking at what happens on the chessboard. Why should a player who has not checkmated his opponent and who has left his opponent without a legal move get a full point?
Why? I really haven't heard an answer to that question, other than the stalemated player "cramped himself" and "cornered himself," which is hardly convincing.
Yes, in either case the player delivering stalemate is responsible for it -- the only difference is that in one scenario it's a more favourable outcome than in the other.
Kens_Mom wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
I dont see the irony..
Religious claims are such they require evidence to prove them.
There needs to be a basis for claims.
Here we are debating a system of rules... there is no "evidence"/belief to speak of. All the facts are on the table.
My system of rules, from a logical/technical standpoint (in fact any standpoint) are just as valid as the current system of rules.
The rest of the debate is about showing which system of rules is the more elegant (mine) and produces the better game (mine). Of course this is a relatively "subjective" question... I have argued my points (ie the basis for why I prefer those rules) better than any on the other side, who mainly come with lame arguements like ..... well you know them already.
I don't get it. You've now admitted that the issue is subjective its ... No. I said [relatively "subjective"] I mean in the sense: "the color yellow is different to a color blind person than someone who sees the color yellow." Same here... if you have critical thinking skills and a scientific mind you will see this issue like me... if not there will be a lot of illogical bleeting about how there should be false props put into the game to keep a weaker player artificially afloat and make the game more "interesting" and "the history and tradition of the game is too important to abandon", and everything else under the sun, except addressing the actual rules themselves., yet you've also reached to the conclusion that your system is, without a doubt, superior to the current one regardless of the overwhelming preference for the latter by other chess players. You might want to look up the word "subjective," because it's definitely not what you think it means.
And to answer the questions "Which system is more elegant?" and "Which system creates a better game?," people have said on the very first pages of this thread that stalemates as draws creates beautiful endgame complications and offers the losing side a defensive resource, keeping the struggle alive in a game that can otherwise be won on autopilot. These are just two points out of many, and they're perfectly good answers to the two questions you've asked. How can you just dismiss these as lame? Moreover, how can you state that you've argued your points better than anybody else? If anything you've just been more tenacious about it. And by "tenacious," I mean repetitive.
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
Your type's in red in the above comment.
I've already explained as have many others why the player who delivers stalemate is responsible for it - he and he alone left his opponent without a legal move by virtue of his last move. You're still trying to tie the result to the responsibility instead of looking at what happens on the chessboard. Why should a player who has not checkmated his opponent and who has left his opponent without a legal move get a full point?
Why? I really haven't heard an answer to that question, other than the stalemated player "cramped himself" and "cornered himself," which is hardly convincing.
youre missing my whole point about responsibility... of course the person making the last move and delivering stalemate is "responsible for making a move and the consequences that follow, just like any move in chess" this is implicitly obvious, like 2+2=4.. this is not interesting or the point and is so obvious its like debating whether 2+2=4... the point , the interesting part, is where the *differences* are in the responsibility between the 2 rules.
stalemate = 1/2 = im 1/2 responsible to ensure you have moves left
stalemate = 1-0 = im not responsible to ensure you have moves left
My arguement isnt that I shouldnt be accountable/responsible for deliverying stalemate (whatever the result)... My arguement, rather, is that stalemate itself should make everyone responsible for their own moves and ensuring they are able to move.. I shouldnt have to be responsible/ accountable for making sure you can move.
batgirl wrote:
I've read Lasker's thoughts but I would be interested to read Nimzovitch's writings on this subject. Can you provide the source?
Nimzo says all that needs to be said in this game
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1003162
The problem with shifting responsibility and making stalemate a win (and this was pointed out by another poster) is you're not accomplishing the objective of the game yet giving the same reward to the player who did. Do we make checkmate +1.5? In your original hypothesis of letting the stalemated player's clock run out, the game ends without the king under attack. In your other proposal, that the king be allowed to move into check and be captured, the game could end with the "victor's" king under attack (pinned piece checks king.)
But at least you're now admitting that the player who delivers stalemate is responsible for it and that his opponent didn't corner and cramp himself
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Kens_Mom wrote:
I don't get it. You've now admitted that the issue is subjective its ... No. I said [relatively "subjective"] I mean in the sense: "the color yellow is different to a color blind person than someone who sees the color yellow." Same here... if you have critical thinking skills and a scientific mind you will see this issue like me... if not there will be a lot of illogical bleeting about how there should be false props put into the game to keep a weaker player artificially afloat and make the game more "interesting" and "the history and tradition of the game is too important to abandon", and everything else under the sun, except addressing the actual rules themselves., yet you've also reached to the conclusion that your system is, without a doubt, superior to the current one regardless of the overwhelming preference for the latter by other chess players. You might want to look up the word "subjective," because it's definitely not what you think it means.
And to answer the questions "Which system is more elegant?" and "Which system creates a better game?," people have said on the very first pages of this thread that stalemates as draws creates beautiful endgame complications and offers the losing side a defensive resource, keeping the struggle alive in a game that can otherwise be won on autopilot. These are just two points out of many, and they're perfectly good answers to the two questions you've asked. How can you just dismiss these as lame? Moreover, how can you state that you've argued your points better than anybody else? If anything you've just been more tenacious about it. And by "tenacious," I mean repetitive.
Alright, how is it "relatively" subjective then? Relative to what? I still don't think you know what the word means, or else you would have been much more open to what others have had to say.
Also, if having "false props put into the game to keep a weaker player artificially afloat" is how some people enjoy the game, how is that not a good argument for keeping stalemate? It keeps the game alive longer, testing the winning side to truly earn it before taking the full point. That makes a good game, at least to most chess players. That's hardly illogical. You've just been dismissing statements like these as "lame" because you've failed to consider their deeper implications. Either that or you just automatically disregard statements that challenge your own.
And regarding the games you posted in these last few posts, they all end with the inferior side relying on a tactical shot that utilizes the idea of stalemate. This supports the idea that the possibility of stalemates as a defensive resource adds more depth to the game and forces both sides to stay sharp until the fat lady sings. The tactical shots at the end alone make these games very elegant. What were you trying to prove by posting these games?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.. and so too is the lack of it.
The monster sees himself as beautiful and his ruleset as logical but the others see him as a troll and his rules as a muddified version of a beautiful game.
What the monster does not understand is that even his version of the rules has been proposed at the chessvariants site at some point, and buried along with the other chess variants there. One only has to look there at chessvariants.org.
And here are links to some other very similar proposals:
Stalemate chess
Capture-the-King -- this one is almost same as monster's!
and also: Capture the Scepter