I don't understand why when the rules doesn't please someone, he just calls it stupid. Is someone remember what is the goal of a chess game and what is checkmate?
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
lets just abolish all the rules and fling pieces at our opponents to knock down their king and send it flying across the room.
There are no draws or stalemates in go.
If you don't like the rules of chess, maybe you should try a different game.
It's not going to change according to your disabilities.
Stalemates are easy to avoid. I rarely run into them.
Yereslov wrote:
There are no draws or stalemates in go.
If you don't like the rules of chess, maybe you should try a different game.
It's not going to change according to your disabilities.
Stalemates are easy to avoid. I rarely run into them.
Draws were once possible in go until they changed the rules. For instance you could have a position with 3 Ko battles, each large enough to win the game. The players would alternate making Ko moves through the three points in a perpetual ko battle. This was possible when I first learned to play go, but since then the rules have changed. If stalemates are easy to avoid, why did the great Sammuel Reshevsky fall for stalemate traps twice in his career?
nameno1had wrote:
I think it would be pointless to take away stalemate. It only gives a form of babying, that the OP claims is already being given. Instead of whining, learning how to look far enough ahead to avoid it would be the answer. If you really dominated your opponent, you should have easily been able to avoid this.
If you wanted to try to make certain rules to take stalemate away, only to help crown a champion, good luck. It would be difficult to expect players to prepare for that unique circumstance, but yet play as it is now otherwise. I realize most games are timed today, but they weren't always and aren't always. I play many untimed games. Untimed games need a way to deal with a tie, regardless of the type.
We could argue the meaning of the terminology, of draw and stalemate. We could argue whether they should be interchangeable terms, but I won't waste my time. If the implied differences between the terms checkmate and stalemate aren't already obvious, regardless of how it happens, then it would certainly be a waste of my time to try to convince you otherwise.
Not all draws are as a result of someone simply avoiding a loss. Both sides may have very well played outstanding, with "best play" resulting in an inevitable draw. Whether it is perpetual check, 3 fold repitition, 50 move rule, insufficient material, the game needs an out, incase one of these situations occur.
You aren't simply suggesting that the rule for stalemate be changed, but also the rule's requirement for a victory in a certain respect. Checkmate is required for a victory, unless you count someone's clock running out, or resigning. If you weren't savvy enough to checkmate them or force them to resign, you didn't truly beat them, you won on a technicality, that I am sure you'll take all day long. It is funny you'd take that, but won't give the technicality to someone you couldn't really beat either. That is hypocrisy in action, if I ever saw it.
I generally don't think much of the victories in short timed games, in which an opponent weasled out a win, due to his opponent running out of time, though he literally had been beaten otherwise. I am not demanding that rule be changed, especially considering the inevitable conclusion, if the game were to have continued. I say this from the wisdom that timed games need a logical conclusion when someone's timer runs out. The beauty of chess is that there are many strategies, complications and results. Otherwise it would be a boring, monotonous game.
I only have one more way of showing the hypocrisy in not thinking your opponent should be able to avoid losing, even if they can't win by an out right fight. If you found yourself in a fight, in which you had offensive capability at the begining, that you lost through the course of the fight, wouldn't you try to avoid losing the fight, resisting in any manner you had left, even if you couldn't really inflict any damage?
If you were a boxer in a match, realizing you couldn't knockout your opponent, you were questioning whether you could match your opponent's punching in the eyes of the judges, and didn't want to quit incase somehow your opponent made a mistake, tired, etc, wouldn't it make sense to fight not to lose, even if you weren't able to fight to win outright, if it were your only hope for a miracle? If you don't think so, your pride is so great, it is not only severely clouds your sense of sportsmanship and competition, but also your judgment in general.
Interesting that you should use a boxing analogy. If the object of a boxing match is to knock some one out, why isn't it a draw if no one gets knocked out?
Estragon wrote:
You aren't paying attention.
It's NOT "his move" if stalemate exists on the board. The game is OVER.
Don't like the rules? FIDE can change them - no one else can - and they even have a permanent commission on the rules to consider changes. So you can go to them. But you will need better reasoning than you display here.
Cool it, your crossing the line with your rhetoric.
Your not paying attention.
Definition of stalemate: "when a player whosTURN it is has no legal moves he can make" it is a draw.
You duck my very simply question to you and just try to insult my reasoning.
Please address the question, once you have and your point is better than mine, I will accept the insult.:
In chess you have to move after the opponent makes a move. My case is if I dominate you such that you have no possible moves, you should be punished for that (I will wait for your "move" until your clock runs out).
Why is it when Im in zugzwang I *have* to move?
When you are in the untilmate zugzwang (stalemate), we look the other way and say, actually, you can pass your move because you cant move. No .. that is an inconsistency.
What Im really curious about, is your rationaliztion.. that when you have no moves you can make (and I still do), why do you call that an equality between us?? I can continue, you are so cramped and in such a weak position you cannot make a move. I am in a position of power , of choice, you are not.
Can you explain how not being able to make a move is a virtue??
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
In chess you have to move after the opponent makes a move. My case is if I dominate you such that you have no possible moves, you should be punished for that (I will wait for your "move" until your clock runs out).
Why is it when Im in zugzwang I *have* to move?
When you are in the untilmate zugzwang (stalemate), we look the other way and say, actually, you can pass your move because you cant move. No .. that is an inconsistency.
Well, that's not really an inconsistency. It's just an exception to another rule in chess which isn't unique to the stalemate rule alone. Here's a very simple example: the Rook can move any number of squares along the file and rank it is on UNLESS the path to its destination is blocked by another piece or pawn. In the case of stalemate, a player must make a move on his turn UNLESS he/she has no legal moves, after which the game is considered drawn. The rule is indeed consistent since every time the situation comes up that one player has no legal moves during his/her turn, it's stalemate without exception. As long as there is no confusion about when stalemate happens (and their isn't, since the rules make things completely clear), there shouldn't be anything inherently wrong with the rule itself. Just consider stalemate one of chess's paradoxes that make the game interesting.
On another note, I understand now why I find these threads so frustrating to read.
It's not because I believe changing the core rules of chess game play to be a somewhat ridiculous idea what would probably never take fruit. It's because these threads get absolutely nowhere despite reaching a sustaintial length and staying fairly on topic. I've read the comments on page 2 and 7, and people are saying the same exact thing. The cast of individuals shifts every once in a while, but the posts just seem to echo one another. This isn't an attack on anyone in particular, just an observation.
Once stalemate occurs the game can't continue, and because of that the game is over (that means the clocks have also been stopped). And since, neither side has resigned or been checkmated, there's no winner and it's a draw. I don't see what the problem is?
Edit: I haven't read all the posts so this might be a repeat.
It is logical that when the opponent is forced into a position where he cannot move yet is not in check that this stalemate results in a draw. This is because the king is not dead (defeated). So because your enemy still lives (both sides) the draw is the only logical result -- pure and simple.
Kens_Mom wrote:
Well, that's not really an inconsistency. It's just an exception to another rule in chess which isn't unique to the stalemate rule alone. Here's a very simple example: the Rook can move any number of squares along the file and rank it is on UNLESS the path to its destination is blocked by another piece or pawn. In the case of stalemate, a player must make a move on his turn UNLESS he/she has no legal moves, after which the game is considered drawn. The rule is indeed consistent since every time the situation comes up that one player has no legal moves during his/her turn, it's stalemate without exception. As long as there is no confusion about when stalemate happens (and their isn't, since the rules make things completely clear), there shouldn't be anything inherently wrong with the rule itself. Just consider stalemate one of chess's paradoxes that make the game interesting.
On another note, I understand now why I find these threads so frustrating to read.
It's not because I believe changing the core rules of chess game play to be a somewhat ridiculous idea what would probably never take fruit. It's because these threads get absolutely nowhere despite reaching a sustaintial length and staying fairly on topic. I've read the comments on page 2 and 7, and people are saying the same exact thing. The cast of individuals shifts every once in a while, but the posts just seem to echo one another. This isn't an attack on anyone in particular, just an observation.
so:
1) rook can move in straight lines unless impeded by other piece
is a good analogy to:
2) The point of the game is to attack the king, I have 5 queens pointed at your king, you cant move -> DRAW
I think if you show point 2) to any intelligent person who is not familiar with chess, they will have quite a funny reaction to it. Maybe try it on your friends who havent been "brainwashed" and conditioned in chess for many years... see what they say with a fresh pair of eyes?
AnthonyCG wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Kens_Mom wrote:
Well, that's not really an inconsistency. It's just an exception to another rule in chess which isn't unique to the stalemate rule alone. Here's a very simple example: the Rook can move any number of squares along the file and rank it is on UNLESS the path to its destination is blocked by another piece or pawn. In the case of stalemate, a player must make a move on his turn UNLESS he/she has no legal moves, after which the game is considered drawn. The rule is indeed consistent since every time the situation comes up that one player has no legal moves during his/her turn, it's stalemate without exception. As long as there is no confusion about when stalemate happens (and their isn't, since the rules make things completely clear), there shouldn't be anything inherently wrong with the rule itself. Just consider stalemate one of chess's paradoxes that make the game interesting.
On another note, I understand now why I find these threads so frustrating to read.
It's not because I believe changing the core rules of chess game play to be a somewhat ridiculous idea what would probably never take fruit. It's because these threads get absolutely nowhere despite reaching a sustaintial length and staying fairly on topic. I've read the comments on page 2 and 7, and people are saying the same exact thing. The cast of individuals shifts every once in a while, but the posts just seem to echo one another. This isn't an attack on anyone in particular, just an observation.
so:
1) rook can move in straight lines unless impeded by other piece
is a good analogy to:
2) The point of the game is to attack the king, I have 5 queens pointed at your king, you cant move -> DRAW
I think if you show point 2) to any intelligent person who is not familiar with chess, they will have quite a funny reaction to it. Maybe try it on your friends who havent been "brainwashed" and conditioned in chess for many years... see what they say with a fresh pair of eyes?
The point of the game is to checkmate the opponent. If the opponent cannot move and is not in check then it is a draw because neither player can move without breaking a rule.
One player can't move into check and the other can't move on their opponent's turn.
A draw is the only logical conclusion.
If you look at chess from the view point of real life or like a war then obviously the king would just be caught sooner or later. However chess is just a board game.
If you look at chess from the point of view of real life -- unless the king was defeated (in check) -- dead! .... he might escape to another country and rebuild a new army. After all, being a king he would be a man of immense influence and wealth, so as long as he remained alive he would have been regarded as a threat. Therefore, from any angle, a stalemate must logically be a draw!
Im looking at chess as a board game.
A game where you cant pass your move.
It should follow that, if you cant make a legal move in a game which requires you to make moves when its your turn, thats not a good thing.
If I can still move and you cant, we're not equal.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
so:
1) rook can move in straight lines unless impeded by other piece
is a good analogy to:
2) The point of the game is to attack the king, I have 5 queens pointed at your king, you cant move -> DRAW
I think if you show point 2) to any intelligent person who is not familiar with chess, they will have quite a funny reaction to it. Maybe try it on your friends who havent been "brainwashed" and conditioned in chess for many years... see what they say with a fresh pair of eyes?
The point of my analogy was only to show that these "inconsistencies" are commonplace in the rules of chess, and that what you believe to be "inconsistent" is not at all the case.
You're probably right in that my non-chess playing friends would mostly find the stalemate rule to be odd and illogical. However, that's hardly enough reason to change the established rules of chess. There's nothing broken with the current system in place, so why change it? There are so many implications to changing the stalemate rule as others have shown in this thread that you would need more valid reasons than what you have presented on this thread to warrant such an act. What you're basically trying to do is change the game of chess into something different, so it's no trivial matter.
Of course, in the end chess is a game with it's own unique set of rules and train of logic. Trying to impose your own logic to the game (i.e. trying to change the rule because it doesn't work the way you and like minded individuals think it should) is a bit silly.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
If I can still move and you cant, we're not equal.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that you try to impose real life logic to in-game rules. It makes sense in real life that a stalemate is a win, but chess need not necessarily follow that train of logic. Sure, the game was inspired by real life events centuries ago, but that's no reason that it must be tied down to real life "rules."
Estragon wrote:
How foolish would it be to ask non-players what they think of chess rules?
If the simple fact that stalemate ENDS the game just as surely as checkmate does by the Laws of Chess is so beyond your ability to accept, perhaps it would be better for all concerned if you gave up the game before it gives you an ulcer.
Tiddly-winks is nice this time of year if you play outdoors. And even in public there aren't so many kibitzers.
I understand perfectly the rules. Im saying they are stupid.
checkmate should be "capture the king". Simple, elegant and logical.
not the convoluted
"when the king cant make a legal move without stepping into check"
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Estragon wrote:
How foolish would it be to ask non-players what they think of chess rules?
If the simple fact that stalemate ENDS the game just as surely as checkmate does by the Laws of Chess is so beyond your ability to accept, perhaps it would be better for all concerned if you gave up the game before it gives you an ulcer.
Tiddly-winks is nice this time of year if you play outdoors. And even in public there aren't so many kibitzers.
I understand perfectly the rules. Im saying they are stupid.
checkmate should be "capture the king". Simple, elegant and logical.
not the convoluted
"when the king cant make a legal move without stepping into check"
Then why do you play? Why did you learn?
I'm reading Peter Nadas right now; Hungarian writers are pretty damned fantastic, I gather.
This guy right here is no Hungarian writer.
Jul 10, 2012
0
#139
Jaques of London, who created (from the designs oof Nathaniel Cooke) patented and manufactured the Staunton chess sets, the most common and approved Chess designs since 1849. Jaques of London also invented, manufactured and distributed Tiddly-Winks since 1857.
But it isn't your turn if stalemate ends the game. The game is over, it is no one's turn.
And you are starting to go over the line with the rhetoric. Cool it.
After my turn it is your turn.
You cant make a move but it is your turn.
Dont confuse move with turn.
This is why stalemate is stupid.
Every other time you *had* to move, you didnt have a choice... it then follows if you cant move, you dont have that option, you should be punished for it. Can you explain how not being able to make a move is a good thing? Why does it deserve equal points when I can move?