Btw - if the idea of abolishing stalemate is so old and so good then why it`s not implemented yet?
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Kens_Mom wrote:
In Monster's defense, it's understandable that he can't keep up with this thread. I don't envy his position. He has burdened himself with the impossible task of trying to prove that his system is objectively better than the one currently in place when in fact the two systems just create different, yet functioning games that cater to different tastes. He's basically comparing apples to oranges, and reasoning that apples should taste like oranges because he believes oranges taste better than apples.
Im good at picking up patterns... and this one is yours... we've come full circle again. We always (with you) start with the bold part above, then over many posts thrash out all the details and implications, rule contradictions, negative effects on endgames, giving more burdens to stronger players etc, once you've lost each of these battles ... its back to the bold part above. Its like an arcade game, put in 20c and try again from the first level... which is fine, as long as you try diferent approaches from here...
As you've already stated, if Monster has failed to reply to any posts directed at him, you might as well take it for what it is: he failed to come up with the appropriate rebuttal against what was said. Not so... After all the pompous comments he's thrown around in the thread, he certainly won't be the one to admit when he's wrong. He'll just keep silent.
I haven't lost anything. If anything, the opposite is true. Like Pawn, I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post. You haven't done enough to support your argument. You just stopped. I just haven't been as persistent about having them answered. It was post 1431, which is already several pages back.
Instead of pointing out some pattern in my argument, try to reply to what I've said. What you've bolded is indeed where we started, and it's also an overarching idea that you've failed to disprove. It's only natural that I bring that up again to clarify what the discussion was about.
Pacifique wrote:
Btw - if the idea of abolishing stalemate is so old and so good then why it`s not implemented yet?
stalemate=1-0 was the original rule you idiot.. go read post #16
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
Btw - if the idea of abolishing stalemate is so old and so good then why it`s not implemented yet?
stalemate=1-0 was the original rule you idiot.. go read post #16
For retarded patzers like you I may rephrase my question - If stalemate is so bad idea why it was implemented? And why it`s not abolished yret?
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
Btw - if the idea of abolishing stalemate is so old and so good then why it`s not implemented yet?
stalemate=1-0 was the original rule you idiot.. go read post #16
Stalemate was widely recognised as a 1-0 in the 10th century. I think it is this fact that you are talking about. However, you got to acknowledge the fact that the middle ages were not really the age of chess and the many rules we have now were totally different. If you want chess to travel a millenia back in time, why don't you as well try to abolish the two-square pawn move, en passant, all the castling nonsense and promotion?
Anyway, at first, stalemate was a win for the STALEMATED side. When chess was invented in India, the stalemate was officially a loss for the side that has stalemated someone. Just read the Wikipedia article. It is written in clear English that in the 9th century, stalemate was a win for the stalemated side. So your assertion that stalemate was originally a win for white is pure bullshit. You know what happens when you try to support you bullshit assertions with even more bullshit?
Pacifique wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
I`m still awaiting for stalemate haters to refute argument about increasing role of material advantage which will make chess players to play more cautious and will make chess simpler and less spectacular.
The argument that it would kill attacking play has been made before and replied to. Most attackers rely on a forced 3 fold repetition or pepetual check to bail them out if the attack doesn't succeed. Lasker's idea of dynamic scoring (where exposing the king would be scored .6-.4 and stalemate .8-.2) should encourage attacking chess, since you would have the secondary stratagy of scoring a marginal victory if your attack doesn't produce mate. I don't hate stalemate, I just think it should be rewarded. As for saying saying making stalemate a lesser win would simplifying the game. consider this A king + 1 knight can force a king into stalemate, but it takes considerable skill. Try it sometime.
Perpetual check is not only option to avoid lose if attack is repulsed. Possibility to enter drawn (due to stalemate) endgame is option possible more often. How many attacks in the highest level have finished with perpetual check?
I don`t see the reason to reward inability to mate your opponent. Especially if it discourages to brave, attacking spectacular play.
True, perpetual check or a forced repetition is not the only way for an attacker or repetition to salvage a draw if they can't force a mate, but it is usually the one they rely on when they launch a speculative attack. They usually avoid endgames like the plague and endgames are where stalemate becomes a factor. Personally, I don't think you can discourage would be attackers because it is in their blood.
blake78613 wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
I`m still awaiting for stalemate haters to refute argument about increasing role of material advantage which will make chess players to play more cautious and will make chess simpler and less spectacular.
The argument that it would kill attacking play has been made before and replied to. Most attackers rely on a forced 3 fold repetition or pepetual check to bail them out if the attack doesn't succeed. Lasker's idea of dynamic scoring (where exposing the king would be scored .6-.4 and stalemate .8-.2) should encourage attacking chess, since you would have the secondary stratagy of scoring a marginal victory if your attack doesn't produce mate. I don't hate stalemate, I just think it should be rewarded. As for saying saying making stalemate a lesser win would simplifying the game. consider this A king + 1 knight can force a king into stalemate, but it takes considerable skill. Try it sometime.
Perpetual check is not only option to avoid lose if attack is repulsed. Possibility to enter drawn (due to stalemate) endgame is option possible more often. How many attacks in the highest level have finished with perpetual check?
I don`t see the reason to reward inability to mate your opponent. Especially if it discourages to brave, attacking spectacular play.
True, perpetual check or a forced repetition is not the only way for an attacker or repetition to salvage a draw if they can't force a mate, but it is usually the one they rely on when they launch a speculative attack. They usually avoid endgames like the plague and endgames are where stalemate becomes a factor. Personally, I don't think you can discourage would be attackers because it is in their blood.
Your statement might be true about amateurs below 2100, but I speak also about players of Master (and above) level who don`t "avoid endgames like the plague". Even now many amateurs complain about "boring play" of top GM`s. Abolishment of stalemate will be motivation for professionals to play even more cautious.
Pacifique wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
I`m still awaiting for stalemate haters to refute argument about increasing role of material advantage which will make chess players to play more cautious and will make chess simpler and less spectacular.
The argument that it would kill attacking play has been made before and replied to. Most attackers rely on a forced 3 fold repetition or pepetual check to bail them out if the attack doesn't succeed. Lasker's idea of dynamic scoring (where exposing the king would be scored .6-.4 and stalemate .8-.2) should encourage attacking chess, since you would have the secondary stratagy of scoring a marginal victory if your attack doesn't produce mate. I don't hate stalemate, I just think it should be rewarded. As for saying saying making stalemate a lesser win would simplifying the game. consider this A king + 1 knight can force a king into stalemate, but it takes considerable skill. Try it sometime.
Perpetual check is not only option to avoid lose if attack is repulsed. Possibility to enter drawn (due to stalemate) endgame is option possible more often. How many attacks in the highest level have finished with perpetual check?
I don`t see the reason to reward inability to mate your opponent. Especially if it discourages to brave, attacking spectacular play.
True, perpetual check or a forced repetition is not the only way for an attacker or repetition to salvage a draw if they can't force a mate, but it is usually the one they rely on when they launch a speculative attack. They usually avoid endgames like the plague and endgames are where stalemate becomes a factor. Personally, I don't think you can discourage would be attackers because it is in their blood.
Your statement might be true about amateurs below 2100, but I speak also about players of Master (and above) level who don`t "avoid endgames like the plague". Even now many amateurs complain about "boring play" of top GM`s. Abolishment of stalemate will be motivation for professionals to play even more cautious.
IWhat I intended to say was that a tended to avoid endgames like the plague after sacrificing for an attack. It is hard to imagine more cautious play than the last world championship and candidates matches.
blake78613 wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
I`m still awaiting for stalemate haters to refute argument about increasing role of material advantage which will make chess players to play more cautious and will make chess simpler and less spectacular.
The argument that it would kill attacking play has been made before and replied to. Most attackers rely on a forced 3 fold repetition or pepetual check to bail them out if the attack doesn't succeed. Lasker's idea of dynamic scoring (where exposing the king would be scored .6-.4 and stalemate .8-.2) should encourage attacking chess, since you would have the secondary stratagy of scoring a marginal victory if your attack doesn't produce mate. I don't hate stalemate, I just think it should be rewarded. As for saying saying making stalemate a lesser win would simplifying the game. consider this A king + 1 knight can force a king into stalemate, but it takes considerable skill. Try it sometime.
Perpetual check is not only option to avoid lose if attack is repulsed. Possibility to enter drawn (due to stalemate) endgame is option possible more often. How many attacks in the highest level have finished with perpetual check?
I don`t see the reason to reward inability to mate your opponent. Especially if it discourages to brave, attacking spectacular play.
True, perpetual check or a forced repetition is not the only way for an attacker or repetition to salvage a draw if they can't force a mate, but it is usually the one they rely on when they launch a speculative attack. They usually avoid endgames like the plague and endgames are where stalemate becomes a factor. Personally, I don't think you can discourage would be attackers because it is in their blood.
Your statement might be true about amateurs below 2100, but I speak also about players of Master (and above) level who don`t "avoid endgames like the plague". Even now many amateurs complain about "boring play" of top GM`s. Abolishment of stalemate will be motivation for professionals to play even more cautious.
IWhat I intended to say was that a tended to avoid endgames like the plague after sacrificing for an attack. It is hard to imagine more cautious play than the last world championship and candidates matches.
They will not avoid drawn endgames (which would be lost without stalemate) if they will have no better options.
Are you sure they could not play more cautious? I did not know that in 3rd and 8th game of WC match for example they played cautious.
Scoring stalemate anything other than 0 or 1/2 just rewards failure.
Stop machine gun fire posting... listen to what people are saying and most important.. think!
If stalemate is a secondary objective, as blake just told you, then its not failure.
And the point about the difficulty of accomplishing stalemate with a king and knight - as if that difficulty deserves a reward - is flawed. This is the same type of guy who will argue stalemate traps are buuudiiifulll, and thats why it should be a draw (reward). A beautiful combination that results in checkmate gets scored the same as a simple back-rank mate.
Hmmmmm
So stalemate's now a "secondary objective" that gets scored the same as the primary objective? Or are you making stalemate less than +1?
BTW, this is the first time (that I know of) that stalemate as a "secondary objective" has come up so don't accuse me of not thinking. You and Blake are changing your positions so fast, it's hard to keep up with you!
So, in your opinion, Monster, is your proposal now to score stalemate less than +1?
It's hard enough to pin you down on whether you favor stalemate as an automatic win or whether you want the king to be permitted to move into check and be captured...don't avoid this question too. Let's advance the debate!
I see no reason to reward stalemate either If a player gets himself into a situation, such as certain endings, where mate is impossible because of the stalemate resource - then that was his own fault. Who are you and what has the PawnPromoter done to you ??
But passing your turn because you cant move should be "no ones fault".. its not so much about "rewarding the other guy"... as it is about "punishing this guy breaking the rules" ..
I had so much hope for you Monster, that you were finally seeing the truth, and then you go and post something like this. Very disappointing.
It's already been explained to you that no one "passes" his turn in chess. Just like the checkmated player doesn't "pass" his turn because he doesn't have a legal move, the stalemated player doesn't "pass" his move because he doesn't have a legal move. If he "passed" his move, then the player delivering stalemate would keep right on playing! Instead, the game is over - no passing of moves takes place!
You're also blaming the stalemated player for stalemate again when it's the player delivering stalemate (the one who made the last move before the stalemate position) who is responsible for that position being created. I thought we cleared this up about 50 posts ago. Now you're back to blaming the stalemated player for stalemate?
Your boxing match analogy is flawed because an outside element (the referee) steps in to stop the fight between the two opponents. Actually its perfect... the stalemate rule "steps in" to "stop the fight" right before one of the players is about to violate 2 rules and calls it a draw
Good grief - you're now comparing the stalemate rule to a referee in boxing who steps in to stop a fight? Do you view the stalemate rule as a person, Monster? Does he follow you around during the day, tormenting you before he runs away or drives off in his car? What does this stalemate person who "steps in" to a chess game to stop it look like, Monster?
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
Btw - if the idea of abolishing stalemate is so old and so good then why it`s not implemented yet?
stalemate=1-0 was the original rule you idiot.. go read post #16
Back to name calling?
Why was the stalemate rule changed from 1-0 if it was so perfect (or even correct?)
Why are the majority of grandmasters NOT in favor of changing it? You cite one or two grandmasters who want it changed, while ignoring all the others who don't. Are you saying the few grandmasters who want it changed are correct while the overwhelming majority who don't want it changed are wrong?
HighNoon52 wrote:
-kenpo- wrote:
how about this? if someone pulls off a stalemate, either intentional or unintentional, they still get half a point, but immediately after the game their opponent gets to tie them to a chair and throw...uhhhh....fish heads? at them? for ten minutes.
Finally, someone brings some sense to this debate - there is always a middleground if people will just look for it! Kenpo, your solution is elegant in its simplicity - endgame theory is not disrupted, stalematers are justly punished, and the chess-watching public is entertained - everyone is a winner!
A couple questions for you - would it be okay to substitute another substance if you're playing inland and fish heads aren't avaialble (mud for instance)? Also what about vegan players who would be against the use of fish heads? Why ten minutes - is this negotiable?
How would you adapt this great new idea online?
Partial "to do" list for Monster (based on only the last 12 hours):
1) State whether stalemate should now be scored less than +1
2) Identify whether he wants stalemate to end the game automatically or whether a king should be allowed to move into check and be captured
3) State whether he is now back to blaming the stalemated player for stalemate and not the player who created the stalemate position by the move immediately preceding the position
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
Partial "to do" list for Monster (based on only the last 12 hours):
1) State whether stalemate should now be scored less than +1
2) Identify whether he wants stalemate to end the game automatically or whether a king should be allowed to move into check and be captured
3) State whether he is now back to blaming the stalemated player for stalemate and not the player who created the stalemate position by the move immediately preceding the position
You do realise that he is not the kind of a guy that would follow your "to do" list? He is pretty agressive and unpredictable.
It's probably just to highlight to others the fact that Monster has been avoiding key points brought up in the thread. It shows that his constant claim of being victorious is unwarranted or, at the very least, premature.
His proposal can't be accepted (let alone advanced) as long as he cherry picks points he's going to respond to.
I have little hope he's going to address any of the points on his partial "to do" list. He even seems to be regressing back to blaming stalemate on the stalemated player (for cramping and cornering himself lol) instead of on the player who delivered stalemate *and whose last move created the stalemate position!*
It`s obvious for any decent chess player that increasing role of material discourages to play more attacking, more spectacular..
Incorrect... white will push harder and more aggressively. Small edges will now prove enough for wins... so people will try harder to win.
The theme of temporarily "sacraficing" in order to regain that material, with interest, will remain. Sacrafices to clear lines to the king will remain..
Actually you are the one know making a claim.. how about you provide some examples of what you mean ? (maybe read post #16 first though)
I speak about decent players not 1700 rated ones. Please give refferences which confirm that "Capablanca, Reti, Lasker, Nimzowitsch" were such a stalemate haters like you.
I would like to see how will you push more harder and more aggressively without sacrifices. Temporarily "sacraficing" has nothing common with real sacrifices.