Stalemate needs to be abolished... - Chess Forums - Page 69

Kens_Mom

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1361

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

Kens_Mom wrote:

Come on, Monster. You're basically saying that you are right because that's how it would work using your system, and that is why your system should be used. That's just circular logic.

stalemate =1-0 i dont have to calculate to make sure you have legal moves left to make, you dont have to do this for me either (equality, fair)

stalemate = 1/2 the player in the strong position has to calculate to ensure you have legal moves, you dont (inequality, unfair)

Why is this circular ?

Its like in soccer after a team scores a point, they have to put on a 5kg backpack on each player of the leading team but not the others.

Reread your earlier post. It's circular reasoning because you've used your proposed change to the rules as a reason for implementing your proposed change. What you have now is a bit better, but I still don't see how that is unfair. It's certainly paradoxical from a certain perspective to ensure legal moves for your opponent in order to avoid a draw, but not unfair. Your "inequity" comes from the fact that the two sides involved in the game are trying to achieve different goals: one side is playing for a draw while the other is going for a win. The inferior side too can try to play for a win, in which case he too would have to take measures to ensure that the game does not end in a draw by allowing legal moves by his opponent. That's certainly equal. It works similarly with 3-fold-rep: the superior side has to keep a lookout for any perpetual checks that could invoke 3-fold-rep while the inferior side doesn't. This is commonly the case when both queens are still on the board.

And the reason that playing for a draw should be easier than playing for a win in a given position for a particular player is that draws are worth less than wins, not to mention they don't provide any point advantage since both players gain an equal amount of points. That's not too hard to figure out, though there could definitely be other reasons.

Your reasoning is very bad.
So a losing player should be given extra resources and proped up because he is only playing for a draw and not the full point ? A draw means *equality*.. if you reached "equality" just because you were proped up and given an unfair advantages then its obviously not a true equality.

The superior side has more factors to worry about because he's trying to keep his advantage. The inferior side has no advantage to maintain, which is why he has fewer things to worry about. To more directly address your post, the inferior side isn't given more resources. The winning side is just pursuing a more rewarding goal which requires more finesse to achieve. And whether the stalemate position is considered equal or not is a much broader question that doesn't address my post.

PawnPromoter316

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1362

stalemate =1-0 i dont have to calculate to make sure you have legal moves left to make, you dont have to do this for me either (equality, fair)

stalemate = 1/2 the player in the strong position has to calculate to ensure you have legal moves, you dont (inequality, unfair)

In your first example, you're right about equality and fairness because neither side has to calculate to ensure their opponent has a legal move.

But there is still equality and fairness in your second example, *if you had referred to an equal endgame position*, because *both players* still have to make sure their opponent can move.

But your second example (and not your first) cites an endgame where one player has a strong position so you could make the claim that the weaker player doesn't have to ensure his opponent has a legal move because he's losing so badly that the requirement is no longer relevant. But the requirement still exists. It doesn't disappear because he's losing. You just object to the rule weighing more heavily on the stronger player.

In the same way your rule of not having to ensure either player has a legal move has great benefit to the stronger player in an unbalanced endgame, the current rule has great benefit to the weaker player in an unbalanced endgame.

So, in an unequal endgame position, neither rule is fair - as you construe fair - because one player will benefit from the rule. The weaker player benefits from the current rule and the stronger player benefits from your rule.

In an equal endgame position, both rules are fair because both players could potentially benefit from them.

You just inserted an unbalanced endgame into your second example without doing so in your first to make your claim of unfairness.

Monster_with_no_Name

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1363

PawnPromoter316 wrote:

stalemate =1-0 i dont have to calculate to make sure you have legal moves left to make, you dont have to do this for me either (equality, fair)

stalemate = 1/2 the player in the strong position has to calculate to ensure you have legal moves, you dont (inequality, unfair)

In your first example, you're right about equality and fairness because neither side has to calculate to ensure their opponent has a legal move. Yes, because *no extra effort is required* of a player just because they are winning or losing

But there is still equality and fairness in your second example, *if you had referred to an equal endgame position*, because *both players* still have to make sure their opponent can move.

But your second example (and not your first) cites an endgame where one player has a strong position [exactly] so you could make the claim that the weaker player doesn't have to ensure his opponent has a legal move because he's losing so badly that the requirement is no longer relevant. But the requirement still exists. It doesn't disappear because he's losing. In most stalemate cases it does... You just object to the rule weighing more heavily on the stronger player. Of course! This is my whole point! Just because Im winning I shouldnt have extra burdens placed on me to try to derail me, that arent put on the opponent. Note, stalemate will help the weaker player.

In the same way your rule of not having to ensure either player has a legal move has great benefit to the stronger player in an unbalanced endgame [only RELATIVE to your stupid exisiting rule... if you disregard your stupid rule as a frame of reference, you will see that haveing the same expectations of both [regardless of how your doing] is true fairness, the same is expected of both players, we dont go upending the games logic, we dont go putting burdens on the winning player, we dont give the losing player extra resources and artificial props to keep them afloat], the current rule has great benefit to the weaker player in an unbalanced endgame.

So, in an unequal endgame position, neither rule is fair WRONG- as you construe fair - because one player will benefit from the rule. [haha "the winner will benefit because we dont give the losing one artificial resources" again you are stuck in your frame of reference being the current rules] The weaker player benefits from the current rule and the stronger player benefits from your rule.

In an equal endgame position, both rules are fair because both players could potentially benefit from them.

You just inserted an unbalanced endgame into your second example without doing so in your first to make your claim of unfairness.

Monster_with_no_Name

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1364

Kens_Mom wrote:

Reread your earlier post. It's circular reasoning because you've used your proposed change to the rules as a reason for implementing your proposed change. What you have now is a bit better, but I still don't see how that is unfair. It's certainly paradoxical from a certain perspective to ensure legal moves for your opponent in order to avoid a draw, but not unfair. ?? So its fair the person in a winning position has to do a lot of extra work *just because he has outplayed you and is winning*, and has to take on 1/2 the responsibilty for your moves as well...he has to not only caluate your moves *for your own protection* BUT he has to alter his potential moves to also protect you and allow you to move freely. Yes the stalemate rule is there from the beginning, BUT it comes in to effect the game in at the late middle game stage, and punishes the person with an advantage. This is clearly not fair. Your "inequity" comes from the fact that the two sides involved in the game are trying to achieve different goals: one side is playing for a draw[*because they have blown any chance of a win due to their bad play*]while the other is going for a win. The inferior side too can try to play for a win, in which case he too would have to take measures to ensure that the game does not end in a draw by allowing legal moves by his opponent. [if the inferior side can play for a win his is not so inferior, also removing the need for him to take responsibility for ensuring I have moves by stalemate = 1-0 already solves the problem of *anyone having to take on extra unfair burdens*] That's certainly equal. It works similarly with 3-fold-rep: the superior side has to keep a lookout for any perpetual checks that could invoke 3-fold-rep while the inferior side doesn't. This is commonly the case when both queens are still on the board.

And the reason that playing for a draw should be easier than playing for a win in a given position for a particular player is that draws are worth less than wins, not to mention they don't provide any point advantage since both players gain an equal amount of points. That's not too hard to figure out, though there could definitely be other reasons.

Your reasoning is very bad.
So a losing player should be given extra resources and proped up because he is only playing for a draw and not the full point ? A draw means *equality*.. if you reached "equality" just because you were proped up and given an unfair advantages then its obviously not a true equality.

The superior side has more factors to worry about because he's trying to keep his advantage. if stalemate = 1-0 he would have the same factors to worry about as the person in the bad position. The inferior side has no advantage to maintain, which is why he has fewer things to worry about. He gets an unfair advantage because his opponenet has to scurry about on eggshells around him and spend time doing so. To more directly address your post, the inferior side isn't given more resources. The winning side is just pursuing a more rewarding goal which requires more finesse to achieve. Nice try And whether the stalemate position is considered equal or not is a much broader question that doesn't address my post.

Monster_with_no_Name

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1365

Grobzilla wrote:

You should hear me get amped up about how badly Basketball is broken! But yes, the current stalemate rule is anti-logical on a few fronts; I won't repeat them here...yet.

I never played much basketball.. but I'd be curious to hear your ideas on this... I always found the "charge" rule very subjective... and the boucing the ball one as well.. how long can they "slow the dribbling down"/ per step etc? [Im not too familiar with the rules]

PawnPromoter316

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1366

You can't cite your rule as an improvement over the existing rule and then not allow it to be judged against the existing rule, and that's exactly what you're doing. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're pointing out advantages of your rule vs. the current rule but not allowing people to point out disadvantages of your rule vs. the current rule.

But have it your way - let's say no rule exists right now for a stalemate position. The game was just invented and the inventors didn't envision a position where one side would not have a legal move but not be in checkmate.

So the stalemated player says he shouldn't lose the game because he's not in checkmate and his inability to move is not his fault - it's the fault of his opponent's last move.

The player who delivered stalemate said he shouldn't lose because there's no way his opponent would be able to checkmate him if he hadn't played his last move and prevented his opponent from moving.

There are the arguments - without referencing any existing or proposed rule.

Is it really fair to award a win to the player who delivered stalemate when his opponent is not checkmated and when the player who delivered stalemate was responsible for the stalemate position? Of course not.

Is it fair to award a win to the stalemated player when he would have no chance of checkmating his opponent? Of course not.

So that is why it's a draw.

PawnPromoter316

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1367

It seems, though, that you're basing your objection to the current rule not on the stalemate position but on what leads up to it.

Your objection, as far as I can tell, is the extra calculating you have to do to ensure your opponent has a legal move - in addition to the calculating you're doing to try to checkmate him. But a player trying to achieve a stalemate position has the same amount of calculating to do - only his calculations are to avoid being checkmated and to force you into stalemating him.

You really don't have any more calculating to do than the weaker player.

When I was playing on a different chess website, I was in a losing position but was able to draw by perpetual check. And it required a lot of calculating to figure out how to accomplish perpetual check (as well as to avoid checkmate.) I'm sure my opponent, if he were playing correctly, was calculating both to checkmate me and to avoid perpetual check. We were both calculating the same things, just with opposite intentions. So it really is a fallacy to claim that the weaker player is just shuffling his pieces around and doing less calculating than the stronger player.

PawnPromoter316

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1368

The last thing I'd point out is that draw by perpetual check and draw by three-fold repetition are not the same thing. Draw by three-fold repetition occurs when the exact same position on a chessboard has been reached three times.

It's well known that Fischer claimed a draw by three-fold repetition against Petrosian in their 1971 match when Fischer was losing (I think it was game 3.)

You could claim that the player with the stronger position (in this case, Petrosian) was unfairly treated because he had to do extra calculating to ensure that the same position was not reached three times (which he failed to do successfully.) But Fischer had to do the same extra calculating too and did it better than Petrosian and saved a lost game by claiming a draw by three-fold repetition.

Kens_Mom

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1369

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

Kens_Mom wrote:

Reread your earlier post. It's circular reasoning because you've used your proposed change to the rules as a reason for implementing your proposed change. What you have now is a bit better, but I still don't see how that is unfair. It's certainly paradoxical from a certain perspective to ensure legal moves for your opponent in order to avoid a draw, but not unfair. ?? So its fair the person in a winning position has to do a lot of extra work *just because he has outplayed you and is winning*, and has to take on 1/2 the responsibilty for your moves as well...he has to not only caluate your moves *for your own protection* BUT he has to alter his potential moves to also protect you and allow you to move freely. Yes the stalemate rule is there from the beginning, BUT it comes in to effect the game in at the late middle game stage, and punishes the person with an advantage. This is clearly not fair.

Both sides are equally subject to the stalemate rule. The losing side just doesn't care about the resulting draw. That's it. You're trying to appeal to the logical basis (or the lack of) behind the current stalemate rule, which could make the case that the rule is paradoxical, but does not say anything about whether the rule is fair in the sense that it treats both players equally.
I've already mentioned this below, but this "unfair" treatment between the winning side and the losing side is also present in the 3-fold-rep rule. Do you actually think that this rule is unfair as well?

Your "inequity" comes from the fact that the two sides involved in the game are trying to achieve different goals: one side is playing for a draw[*because they have blown any chance of a win due to their bad play*]

Yes, and?

while the other is going for a win. The inferior side too can try to play for a win, in which case he too would have to take measures to ensure that the game does not end in a draw by allowing legal moves by his opponent. [if the inferior side can play for a win his is not so inferior, also removing the need for him to take responsibility for ensuring I have moves by stalemate = 1-0 already solves the problem of *anyone having to take on extra unfair burdens*]

One can always play for a win, regardless of being inferior or superior. It's just not practical for the inferior side to do so if he doesn't have much of a chance. I was illustrating in this example that both sides are affected by stalemates regardless of their chances in the game.

That's certainly equal. It works similarly with 3-fold-rep: the superior side has to keep a lookout for any perpetual checks that could invoke 3-fold-rep while the inferior side doesn't. This is commonly the case when both queens are still on the board.

And the reason that playing for a draw should be easier than playing for a win in a given position for a particular player is that draws are worth less than wins, not to mention they don't provide any point advantage since both players gain an equal amount of points. That's not too hard to figure out, though there could definitely be other reasons.

Your reasoning is very bad.
So a losing player should be given extra resources and proped up because he is only playing for a draw and not the full point ? A draw means *equality*.. if you reached "equality" just because you were proped up and given an unfair advantages then its obviously not a true equality.

The superior side has more factors to worry about because he's trying to keep his advantage. if stalemate = 1-0 he would have the same factors to worry about as the person in the bad position.

That's certainly not the case. The winning side would still need to go out of their way to prevent 3-fold-rep and 50-move rule in order to avoid the draw.

The inferior side has no advantage to maintain, which is why he has fewer things to worry about. He gets an unfair advantage because his opponenet has to scurry about on eggshells around him and spend time doing so.
Stalemate doesn't give any advantage to the inferior side. The inferior side is still at a disadvantage, possibly drawing. It just makes his job easier than if he were playing for a win because he's made the concession of abandoning the more difficult goal of trying to win the game.

To more directly address your post, the inferior side isn't given more resources. The winning side is just pursuing a more rewarding goal which requires more finesse to achieve. Nice try

Huh?

And whether the stalemate position is considered equal or not is a much broader question that doesn't address my post.

Grobzilla

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1370

A problem I see with arguments above, on both sides, is the referencing of inferior/superior players, their play, and whether the rules allow for help/hurt in imbalanced-ability situations (which are most!) and their aesthetic value subsequently born out by play effected by said rule. I cannot stress this enough, so I'm going all caps for just a moment here: THE RULES/LAWS DON'T EVER KNOW THERE IS AN IMBALANCE IN ABILITY, NOR SHOULD THEY. All good and proper laws and rules *take no favor* for the parties concerned; they provide *equity* for the two players/parties. And they most certainly aren't about preserving any perceived aesthetic value due to either the ability imbalance or the rule that removes equity from the players, as I & others postulate it does in fact do.

We start out each & every game, each and every one of us, equals in the eyes of both the rules of the game, and in the competetive spirit with which we endeavor to play. I'd have gone all caps again with that statement, but I didn't want to be taken lightly by trying to be taken seriously. :)

Yes, White most assuredly has an advantage in the opening move, but then, we only play half our games with that color, correct? That factor balances out between the colors and I can't imagine anyone really feels the need to find ways to make W & B any more even than they are, can they?

Also, some of the statements seem to imply that it's (almost) always Black that needs the help. You know this is not so. So, as the current stalemate rule "works" for both sides, no real advantage is given back to Black, other than she might need it more often than White...but don't be too sure of that frequency, unless you only play in the very strongest of fields.

If we're going to have ways to seek to righten an imbalance in ability through inequitable rules, it then logically serves that we could start doing the same by handicapping the perceived-to-be-stronger-at-that-moment player, couldn't we? Pawn odds in favor of the weakie, anybody? I though not.

I for one LOVE the fact that you, me, Nakamura, the patzer down at club, the park hustler, Kramnik, ad infinitum all play under the same rules, rules, that for the most part, are fair & balanced and *make no assumption that either player is stronger than the other*, and don't seek to right such an inequality once the situation becomes clearer as to who will win the game. Stalemate is currently just about the only rule that does this. It is bunk and needs to *revert* to something like the half win only for the giver.

.75-.25, anyone?

MarvinTheRobot

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1371

Stalemate is a draw. Period.

If you are not happy with it, go to a chess variant site. I'm here to play the game I enjoy and a game that millions of people have been enjoying for ages. A game that is full of beautiful masterpieces and strategic elements. Stalemate that is a win would change it all upside down. I'm not up for it. And no, it's not logical for a stalemate to be a win either.

Grobzilla

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1372

MarvinTheRobot wrote:

Stalemate is a draw. Period.

If you are not happy with it, go to a chess variant site. I'm here to play the game I enjoy and a game that millions of people have been enjoying for ages. A game that is full of beautiful masterpieces and strategic elements. Stalemate that is a win would change it all upside down. I'm not up for it. And no, it's not logical for a stalemate to be a win either.

Ah, more of "the rule is rule so it stays a rule because rules never change and that's the rule and rules can never be debated". I tip my hat in your ignorant direction as I walk on by to debate those unafraid.

If the rule never changes, and we play it the proposed way, then, sure, it's a variant, much like this "upside-down" chess you mention. Sounds fun!. I have no issue with it becoming a variant. But I'll still try to get the rule changed. Because it's illogical.

By the way, I feel like you were going to tell me how it is illogical for stalemate to be .75-.25 instead of .5-.5.

Please proceed. Or don't. I'm betting on the latter.

NM Pacifique

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1373

Abolishing of stalemate will increase importance of material, changing evaluation of many endgames where weakest side survives only due to stalemate rule. And it will lead to more cautious & boring chess with less beautiful combinations and sacrifices.

Let stalemate players play their own game if they want, but hands off from real chess!

blake78613

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1374

Grobzilla wrote:

MarvinTheRobot wrote:

Stalemate is a draw. Period.

If you are not happy with it, go to a chess variant site. I'm here to play the game I enjoy and a game that millions of people have been enjoying for ages. A game that is full of beautiful masterpieces and strategic elements. Stalemate that is a win would change it all upside down. I'm not up for it. And no, it's not logical for a stalemate to be a win either.

Ah, more of "the rule is rule so it stays a rule because rules never change and that's the rule and rules can never be debated". I tip my hat in your ignorant direction as I walk on by to debate those unafraid.

If the rule never changes, and we play it the proposed way, then, sure, it's a variant, much like this "upside-down" chess you mention. Sounds fun!. I have no issue with it becoming a variant. But I'll still try to get the rule changed. Because it's illogical.

By the way, I feel like you were going to tell me how it is illogical for stalemate to be .75-.25 instead of .5-.5.

Please proceed. Or don't. I'm betting on the latter.

+1

I might add that the chess we play on chess.com is a varient known as the chess of the mad queen and is relative new when you consider the long history of chess. I don't know what a robot's concept of "ages" is but the current stalemate rule was standerized about 1856 in the Western World. Until then stalemate was treated in variety of ways: a win for the stalemater, a win for the person being stalemated, an illegal move not allowed, loss of move for the person stalemated, and a lesser win for the person giving stalemate. Technique in chess does not remain static so neither should the rules. In order to survive many games and sports tinker with the rules to maintain a balance between offense and defense (for instance the off-side rule in football is constantly being changed)

I rather doubt that the best chess players in the world got together in 1856 and decided that stalemate as a draw was the most logical outcome. More likely the people that decided were rich patrons and officials of chess clubs and the top players got about as much say as FIDE bureaucrats gives grandmasters today. My guess is that each country was arguing for their local rule and the result was a compromise. The most popular chess in the world is in Chinese chess which is played by billions. In Chinese chess stalemate is a win. Can you imagine the response if you tried to tell the Chinese that their rule on stalemate is illogical?

Grobzilla

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1375

blake78613 wrote:

The most popular chess in the world is in Chinese chess which is played by billions. In Chinese chess stalemate is a win. Can you imagine the response if you tried to tell the Chinese that their rule on stalemate is illogical?

Please, please, PLEASE let the answer be "Kung-Fu". My Southern Praying Mantis has gone weak with years of no practice.

MarvinTheRobot

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1376

Grobzilla wrote:

Ah, more of "the rule is rule so it stays a rule because rules never change and that's the rule and rules can never be debated". I tip my hat in your ignorant direction as I walk on by to debate those unafraid.

That was not my main argument. This was rather to point out that changing the rules of chess will basically make millions of master games and masterpieces useless. Therefore it is irrational for your rules to become "Official FIDE rules of chess". Not because the rules you propose themselves are irrational (though I argue that, in fact, they are), but because these rules will place chess books, analyzed games, very nice games and masterpieces, all the millions of official games in the trashbin.

If the rule never changes, and we play it the proposed way, then, sure, it's a variant, much like this "upside-down" chess you mention. Sounds fun!. I have no issue with it becoming a variant. But I'll still try to get the rule changed. Because it's illogical.

There would be no problem for a decent programmer to make such a variant for you. Just take a chess application and change the digits under the section "stalemate". Then just play your variant in peace. We, on the other hand, abide by the rules that FIDE currently supports and we are enjoying this game. It all boils down to personal preference, just like religion does: i.e. some are christians, some are muslims etc. They are all religion "variants", just like there are many chess "variants". Though, neither variant is more "correct" than the other. It is just simply a matter of preference. This site here is focused on promoting the FIDE variant. What stops you from creating another chess federation that would promote your chess variant suggestion?

By the way, I feel like you were going to tell me how it is illogical for stalemate to be .75-.25 instead of .5-.5.

There were many posts on this with different arguments. I can understand that you would not want to read all those 72 pages (I wouldn't want to either). Anyway, when it comes to me, I would propose these arguments for my case:

1. The goal of chess is to checkmate the opponent king or to force the opponent to resign. If you are unable to accomplish this goal, the result is NOT a win, but rather, a loss or a draw. I would consider stalemate to be a draw, rather than a loss. When a stalemate occurs, the game is automatically ended. Since the game has ended and neither of the players have succeeded in checkmating the opponent king, the result cannot be win. It is a draw. Your suggested result "0.75 - 0.25" favours the side that stalemates the opponent. This would be basically considered as a win for that side and I do not agree with it because of the above reason.

2. Your proposed result of "0.75 - 0.25" suggests that somehow the player that has put his opponent in stalemate has somehow performed better. However, I disagree with this result. For a winning position to be truly won, you have to prove it over the board. For a drawish position to be truly drawn, you have to prove it over the board and etc. If you had a winning position, and blew it away by stalemating your opponent instead of checkmating him, you have basically made a blunder, thus, your performance was not good and DOESN'T deserve a better reward than the player who was stalemated. The democratic way would be to split the result into equal parts, because each player played equally well (their blunders resulted in equalty).

Please note that this is my viewpoint and it doesn't have to be the best. There were people that can supply other arguments as well. At the moment, at least from my perspective, it looks like stalemate should be left a draw. If the result is changed, the chess theory changes as well, books will have to be rewritten, chess theory will also have to be reconsidered, the millions of games that were played will have to be trashed. It basically seems cruel to do this. I enjoy lots of games, even those that include stalemate traps (it is really exciting to see a stalemating combination performed by the supposedly losing player). Also tablebases that have been developed for years will also turn out to have been a useless project. Rather than trying to destroy the fundamental rules of chess as we play it on this site, go on to make your own site. It will be best for both parties.

TheGrobe

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1377

Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

TheGrobe wrote:

Must checkmate opponent -> win

Failed to checkmate opponent -> not a win

Yes thats the very high level summary way to put it... now delve into the implications and details.

It was intended to highlight your very selective and slanted lens into a compare and contrast of the rules. You keep omiting the overarching objective of chess (because it's convenient to your argument): The goal of the game is to checkmate your opponent.

This means that you must simultaneously constrain and attack the King. Only one of the two is insufficient.

And before you launch into your "You're just arguing that the rules are the rule" nonsense, pause for a moment, and reflect on the fact that you're simply arguing that the rules should be different. Create a variant already.

Grobzilla

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1378

MarvinTheRobot wrote:

Grobzilla wrote:

Ah, more of "the rule is rule so it stays a rule because rules never change and that's the rule and rules can never be debated". I tip my hat in your ignorant direction as I walk on by to debate those unafraid.

That was not my main argument. This was rather to point out that changing the rules of chess will basically make millions of master games and masterpieces useless. Therefore it is irrational for your rules to become "Official FIDE rules of chess". Not because the rules you propose themselves are irrational (though I argue that, in fact, they are), but because these rules will place chess books, analyzed games, very nice games and masterpieces, all the millions of official games in the trashbin.

I disagree on two points: One, that it will make all of chess history useless. I honestly don't think the potential stalemate, and its current score, would make it so. I just don't think it's that big of a part of the game. Two, if it were so, is this such a terrible thing? Many already complain about the incredible depth of opening theory and the repeatability of positions in games. I'm kinda guessing that's why 960 is growing. Oh, but that's not classical FIDE chess, so we can't have that, right? More on that later...

If the rule never changes, and we play it the proposed way, then, sure, it's a variant, much like this "upside-down" chess you mention. Sounds fun!. I have no issue with it becoming a variant. But I'll still try to get the rule changed. Because it's illogical.

There would be no problem for a decent programmer to make such a variant for you. Just take a chess application and change the digits under the section "stalemate". Then just play your variant in peace. We, on the other hand, abide by the rules that FIDE currently supports and we are enjoying this game. It all boils down to personal preference, just like religion does: i.e. some are christians, some are muslims etc. They are all religion "variants", just like there are many chess "variants". Though, neither variant is more "correct" than the other. It is just simply a matter of preference. This site here is focused on promoting the FIDE variant. What stops you from creating another chess federation that would promote your chess variant suggestion?

1) I can't possibly play enough games on my own to see what kind of difference it makes. Sure would be nice to have help from the Masters of the game...

2) Yes, these are currently FIDE's rules. You do know that FIDE hasn't always had the same rules, right? Pretty sure Capablanca wasn't playing Fischer/Bronstein time controls. Oh, and he wanted stalemate changed, too. Look it up.

3) I never actually brought FIDE or chess.com into the argument. I'm actually referring to all of Chess, not to a federation which you liken to a religion, which is a little scary. But if we're using that analogy, chess is my religion, too, and I can believe what I want and even debate about it.

By the way, I feel like you were going to tell me how it is illogical for stalemate to be .75-.25 instead of .5-.5.

There were many posts on this with different arguments. I can understand that you would not want to read all those 72 pages (I wouldn't want to either). Anyway, when it comes to me, I would propose these arguments for my case:

1. The goal of chess is to checkmate the opponent king or to force the opponent to resign. If you are unable to accomplish this goal, the result is NOT a win, but rather, a loss or a draw. I would consider stalemate to be a draw, rather than a loss. When a stalemate occurs, the game is automatically ended. Since the game has ended and neither of the players have succeeded in checkmating the opponent king, the result cannot be win. It is a draw. Your suggested result "0.75 - 0.25" favours the side that stalemates the opponent. This would be basically considered as a win for that side and I do not agree with it because of the above reason.

Circular logic. Things happen a certain way because the rules make it so, and we made those rules. Rules, and therefore outcomes, can indeed change.

2. Your proposed result of "0.75 - 0.25" suggests that somehow the player that has put his opponent in stalemate has somehow performed better. However, I disagree with this result. For a winning position to be truly won, you have to prove it over the board. For a drawish position to be truly drawn, you have to prove it over the board and etc. If you had a winning position, and blew it away by stalemating your opponent instead of checkmating him, you have basically made a blunder, thus, your performance was not good and DOESN'T deserve a better reward than the player who was stalemated. The democratic way would be to split the result into equal parts, because each player played equally well (their blunders resulted in equalty).

So wait, which is it? A stalemate when you're ahead and blunder is only deserving of a half for both, or a stalemate by a clever player behind is a half for both? They don't really seem equal in my mind. They are in your rules.

Please note that this is my viewpoint and it doesn't have to be the best. There were people that can supply other arguments as well. At the moment, at least from my perspective, it looks like stalemate should be left a draw. If the result is changed, the chess theory changes as well, books will have to be rewritten, chess theory will also have to be reconsidered, the millions of games that were played will have to be trashed. It basically seems cruel to do this. I enjoy lots of games, even those that include stalemate traps (it is really exciting to see a stalemating combination performed by the supposedly losing player). Also tablebases that have been developed for years will also turn out to have been a useless project. Rather than trying to destroy the fundamental rules of chess as we play it on this site, go on to make your own site. It will be best for both parties.

1) Again, I'm not proposing a change for this site or for FIDE; I'm proposing it for all of Chess. Chess players seem logical; the current rule does not.

2) It won't destroy history at all. It'll still be there. It may even be greatly relevant, we don't know yet.

3) I don't share your excitement for stalemating draws. Or even draws for that matter, but I love Chess, and I'm not touching draws w/a 10ft pole. And a stalemate and a draw aren't the same thing. They just currently have the same score.

4) I'll play wherever I damn well please, just like you. And I'll speak my own damn mind, just like you. You can always ignore me. As I can you. But I prefer a well-meaning debate.

blake78613

Sep 13, 2012

0

#1379