I take issue with the thought that the dominant player is "cooperating with the opposition" by ensuring he can move. The game ends if his opponent can't move so the dominant player is aiding his pursuit of accomplishing the game's objective by ensuring his opponent can move. I'm sure his opponent would welcome *not* being able to continue - therefore, the dominant player is *cooperating* with his opponent by stalemating him and leaving him unable to continue. He's *not* cooperating with his opponent by ensuring he can move!
Stalemate needs to be abolished...
Sort:
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
Ha, true. Is there any other game where a player or team that fails to accomplish the game's objective is rewarded with a win for achieving a secondary objective? There may be, but I can't think of any. Wondering if this "secondary objective counts as a win" idea sets a precedent.
Let see, there is boxing where the primary objective is a knockout and a secondary objective would be out pointing your opponent, wrestling where the primary objective is pinning with many secondary objectives, there is American football where the primary objective is to score a touch down but you can win with a field goal, there is bridge where th e primary object is score a slam, but many secondary objectives (game, part score ect.) many war games that have secondary objectives. Also in real life there is actual war where there are often secondary objectives. The air force often settles for secondary targets when it can't reach its primary target. This is just a starter list there are many others.
I can speak to American football. The objective is to score more points than your opponent - not to score more touchdowns. A football team can't win without achieving the objective of scoring more points - it doesn't matter whether those points come about from touchdowns, field goals, a safety, etc.
In boxing, the primary objective is to knock out your opponent and the only reason you're allowed to win on points is because the boxing match timed out. That's analogous to a chess player winning because his opponent's clock ran out.
How does a wrestler win without pinning his opponent? By points? That's only because the clock ran out, which is already covered under a win by timeout in chess.
You're basing secondary wins on something outside the game itself - i.e. the clock. Remove the clock from your examples so the game stands or falls on its own merits.
Don't know anything about bridge or war games.
Just to (briefly) elaborate...
If the objective in American football were to score touchdowns, then the team that scored one touchdown would be victorious over the team that only scored three field goals. It's the number of points - not the way they are achieved - that determines the winner in American football
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
<I take issue with the thought that the dominant player is "cooperating with the opposition" by ensuring he can move. The game ends if his opponent can't move so the dominant player is aiding his pursuit of accomplishing the game's objective by ensuring his opponent can move.>
I can't argue that it is in the supposed-dominant player's best interest to arrive at a 1-0 win vs. a .75-.25 stalemate, but what if the supposed-dominant player concludes that by not forcing a stalemate now, she might arrive at a drawn position later, despite the current perceived dominance in position, thereby throwing a .25 point on the floor? And might the supposed-submissive want to decline a .25 in hope that the position can be later drawn, garnering the .5, despite the current imbalance? Maybe even won?
<I'm sure his opponent would welcome *not* being able to continue - therefore, the dominant player is *cooperating* with his opponent by stalemating him and leaving him unable to continue. He's *not* cooperating with his opponent by ensuring he can move!>
I refer to the above arguments, as you're assumption is that the supposed-dominant will always want or and/or achieve a full win if she avoids stalemate and continues, and the supposed-submissive will always want the guaranteed .25 instead of drawing, or even winning, chances if they were to compete and find another line, despite the risk of full loss.
Each player should try and maximize their score both per game and over time, but it's incorrect to say that in any given position, either side will want the opposite of the other to happen, while looking for their own best interests, solely. Both sides, while not cooperating, can strive for what they see as maximum results for their side and arrive at the same result. In Game Theory, that's called a Min-Max, or, the best that both can achieve w/their opponent trying the same. Maybe I'll outline some stuff later, need a haircut and have pool league. 
I realize that these sorts of considerations may have drastic effects on the game, for better or worse, the more I debate this issue. I contend that that alone is not enough reason to not discuss any proposed rule change. It may however, after a conclusive result from analysis of play, may be enough to not implement itexcept as a variant. Or not. Would be interesting to see, even if possibly not reflective of our current Holy Pursuit. But there's still a chance it would be an improvement.
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
<But in what other game is a player allowed to fail to achieve the game's objective yet put his opponent in a situation where he is unable to continue and achieve a win or partial win?>
The two easiest and best examples are Checkers and Combat sports like Boxing/MMA. In Checkers the objective is to capture all of the opponent's men; but if you can't move, it's also a full loss. Though not the objective, dominance = win. In combat sports, both combatants are on the same clock, so the clock argument doesn't hold. The object in both is to put the opponent in a position where they can't continue prior to the clock running out, e.g., knockout or submission (where the losers submits, as the assumption is that if he didn't, grave bodily harm would come to bear) or resignation. If that doesn't happen, the full win is given to whomever showed dominance, as adjudicated by the scoring judges round by round.
<In what other game is a player who fails to achieve the game's objective allowed to claim a win or partial win based on achieving a secondary objective?
Are there examples of either?>
Restated. I refer to the above.
<You can say, "Make stalemate a secondary objective," but in what other game does a secondary objective become the means to a win or partial win when the player fails to achieve the actual objective?>
Restatement. Refer to the initial response.
<Dominance isn't enough - you've got to convert that dominance to a win.>
This is indeed the crux of the debate, but not a salient point in of itself. Why "got to"?
<Thinking that dominance should be rewarded implies that an objective of chess should be to capture as many of your opponent's pieces while preventing as many of yours from being captured.>
This is indeed a valid postulate. If the proposed rule change was to bear it out, we would have to scrap it, because I believe all parties in the debate can agree that the ultimate goal should be to capture the enemie's King (though we never actually capture it; but that's another debate), and not just scoop up pieces, though the latter can often lead to the former.
Unfortunately I don't play checkers so can't respond to that, but in combat sports, is the fact that a participant cannot continue 100 percent due to his opponent? I would say, "No." The participant had the ability to block or duck a knockout punch. How about stalemate? Is the fact the participant cannot continue 100 percent due to his opponent's last move?
In combat sports, the participant is rewarded for his opponent being unable to continue because his opponent had resources to avoid that fate but didn't use them properly.
In stalemate, the participant is penalized for his opponent being unable to continue because his opponent has no resources to prevent the move that creates the stalemate position.
Yes, you can say a few moves back he had resources, but then you are making the weaker player responsible for the stronger player's moves (I.e. "I better not play Kg4 because my opponent will have a greater likelihood of creating a stalemate. Now if I play Kg3, he still might leave me without a move. So I'll play my king to another square so my opponent won't stalemate me." You're making the weaker player responsible for the very thing the OP objected to - his opponent's moves!
Grobzilla wrote:
Why should we ever be responsible for our opponent's ability to make a legal move? Why should we ever have to keep in our minds our opponent's ability to continue? Why, in any true two-party *competition* should I ever have to *cooperate w/the opposition* to continue their ability to compete? Because that's what the current rule asks us to do.
The last thing that happens before it's your opponent's turn to move, is that you complete your move. You're opponent has no say in what your move is, so if they can't move as a result, it's 100% your doing. You are 100% responsible for the outcome of your move. I don't know why this concept is difficult to grasp.
Now, as for being obligated in some way shape or form to "cooperate with the opposition" to continue their ability to compete, the fact is you're not. The current rule obligates you to do no such thing. What it does do is outline exactly what happens when you do: The game is drawn. So by all means, stalemate away, just understand that the consequence of failing to checkmate your opponent while still preventing them from having a legal move is that you do not win the game. Given that the objective is to checkmate your opponent, there's nothing illogical or inconsistent here.
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
Unfortunately I don't play checkers so can't respond to that, but in combat sports, is the fact that a participant cannot continue 100 percent due to his opponent? I would say, "No." The participant had the ability to block or duck a knockout punch. How about stalemate? Is the fact the participant cannot continue 100 percent due to his opponent's last move?
In combat sports, the participant is rewarded for his opponent being unable to continue because his opponent had resources to avoid that fate but didn't use them properly.
In stalemate, the participant is penalized for his opponent being unable to continue because his opponent has no resources to prevent the move that creates the stalemate position.
Yes, you can say a few moves back he had resources, but then you are making the weaker player responsible for the stronger player's moves (I.e. "I better not play Kg4 because my opponent will have a greater likelihood of creating a stalemate. Now if I play Kg3, he still might leave me without a move. So I'll play my king to another square so my opponent won't stalemate me." You're making the weaker player responsible for the very thing the OP objected to - his opponent's moves!
In chess the participant can play perfect chess, but still not be able to mate his opponent because his opponent made only minor mistake and can resist the attempts at checkmate, but not resist a forced checkmate, for instance King + Knight vs. King. I see not distinction between that and a boxer being unable to knock out his opponent because his dependent can defend. By the way this could happen even if there was not a time limit in boxing. Most K.O.s are scored in the first round. Often at the end of the fight the winner no longer has the energy to score a knockout, even if there they could fight an infinate number of rounds.
This is a bit of a rabbit hole anyway, chess is not boxing.
TheGrobe wrote:
This is a bit of a rabbit hole anyway, chess is not boxing.
I tend to agree, but it does provide a counter example to PawnPromotions claim that no other sport or game has secondary objects. If you don't respond to his attempts at making a distinction he will claim you not responding to his arguments.
TheGrobe wrote:
Grobzilla wrote:
Why should we ever be responsible for our opponent's ability to make a legal move? Why should we ever have to keep in our minds our opponent's ability to continue? Why, in any true two-party *competition* should I ever have to *cooperate w/the opposition* to continue their ability to compete? Because that's what the current rule asks us to do.
<The last thing that happens before it's your opponent's turn to move, is that you complete your move. You're opponent has no say in what your move is, so if they can't move as a result, it's 100% your doing. You are 100% responsible for the outcome of your move. I don't know why this concept is difficult to grasp.>
It's easy to grasp. That's because the current rule says, "If you stalemate, you get .5 points". So what you're saying is, "The rule says it's .5 point if you stalemate, so don't stalemate if you don't want to be affected by that rule". Circular logic once again. The debate is if *the very rule itself is smart, just, correct, or logical, or if it is the very converse*, not that the rule exists and you have to adjust your play for it. Also, if the outcome of my very move is that you can't do anything, nothing legal, you can no longer compete, haven't I demonstrated effective dominance? You *can't mate or even draw* with me if you can't move, except for the rule in debate currently scores it the same as the varied draws are.
<Now, as for being obligated in some way shape or form to "cooperate with the opposition" to continue their ability to compete, the fact is you're not. The current rule obligates you to do no such thing. What it does do is outline exactly what happens when you do: The game is drawn. So by all means, stalemate away, just understand that the consequence of failing to checkmate your opponent while still preventing them from having a legal move is that you do not win the game.>
Again, your non-argument is simply that the rule exist, not that it is logical or not. It exists. It has effects. It *can be changed*. It would have *different effects* if changed. That is the crux of the debate.
<Given that the objective is to checkmate your opponent, there's nothing illogical or inconsistent here.>
There is. The Illogicality or inconsistency here is that the game currently only allows for 2 "End States", that cover a variety of clear and/or practical endings: 1-0 or .5-.5. I propose that there should be *at least* one more end state to the game, .75-.25. Currently it would only cover stalemate, but maybe there's an argument for perpetual check, e.g., but let's leave that & "Dynamic Scoring" for another debate, if can, despite its relevancy.
blake78613 wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
This is a bit of a rabbit hole anyway, chess is not boxing.
I tend to agree, but it does provide a counter example to PawnPromotions claim that no other sport or game has secondary objects. If you don't respond to his attempts at making a distinction he will claim you not responding to his arguments.
Yeah, that's fair, there are plenty of examples -- NHL Hockey now has (or will, when it resumes) overtime losses still count as a point to the losing team. Getting out of regulation time with a tie is worth a point to each team regardless of the ultimate outcome of the game.
PawnPromoter316 wrote:
<Unfortunately I don't play checkers so can't respond to that,>
Why not? It's a game with easily understood rules. One doesn't need to be an expert in either game to speak intelligently about either set of rules. You asked for a counter-example, one closely related, I might add. Your implication was, "No counter-example equals no precedent". There is precedent.
<but in combat sports, is the fact that a participant cannot continue 100 percent due to his opponent? I would say, "No." The participant had the ability to block or duck a knockout punch. How about stalemate? Is the fact the participant cannot continue 100 percent due to his opponent's last move?>
Apportioning responsibility isn't the goal of a game or sport. If you blunder and I mate, I get a full win as much as the winner of the brilliancy prize. It doesn't matter if I defeated your defenses for the knockout, or if you were in bad shape to keep your hands up all the time. You are knocked out and I win. We're not talking about adjudication, we're talking about final, clear-cut endings.
<In combat sports, the participant is rewarded for his opponent being unable to continue because his opponent had resources to avoid that fate but didn't use them properly.>
Your assumption is that one can always avoid being beaten if you use all of your resources is patently false. Competitors of all games and sports have done everything in their power to win/not lose and have suffered defeat. All day, every day.
<In stalemate, the participant is penalized for his opponent being unable to continue because his opponent has no resources to prevent the move that creates the stalemate position.>
Not sure if I have this right: stalemate-giver is "penalized" because he didn't make sure the receiver had the resources to prevent the giver's move that keeps the receiver from moving? Exactly how responsible are we for my opponent? First his moves, nad now his resources? Moreover, why at all? Aren't we competitors? I'm going to have to label this one as ridiculous.
<Yes, you can say a few moves back he had resources, but then you are making the weaker player responsible for the stronger player's moves (I.e. "I better not play Kg4 because my opponent will have a greater likelihood of creating a stalemate. Now if I play Kg3, he still might leave me without a move. So I'll play my king to another square so my opponent won't stalemate me." You're making the weaker player responsible for the very thing the OP objected to - his opponent's moves!>
No. First, I don't think you mean weaker/stronger players. The rules care not for your strength; we are all equal. I think you mean weaker/stronger postitions. Second, just because the score changes, does your strategy? Why would you avoid taking a .25 point if that's your best chance and steer yourself into a postition where you'll get none. Just because you got .5 before doesn't mean you should except zero over .25 when it's your bes option.
Grobzilla wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Grobzilla wrote:
Why should we ever be responsible for our opponent's ability to make a legal move? Why should we ever have to keep in our minds our opponent's ability to continue? Why, in any true two-party *competition* should I ever have to *cooperate w/the opposition* to continue their ability to compete? Because that's what the current rule asks us to do.
youcomplete your move. You're opponent has no say in what your move is, so if they can't move as a result, it's 100% your doing. You are 100% responsible for the outcome of your move. I don't know why this concept is difficult to grasp.>
It's easy to grasp. That's because the current rule says, "If you stalemate, you get .5 points". So what you're saying is, "The rule says it's .5 point if you stalemate, so don't stalemate if you don't want to be affected by that rule". Circular logic once again. The debate is if *the very rule itself is smart, just, correct, or logical, or if it is the very converse*, not that the rule exists and you have to adjust your play for it. Also, if the outcome of my very move is that you can't do anything, nothing legal, you can no longer compete, haven't I demonstrated effective dominance? You *can't mate or even draw* with me if you can't move, except for the rule in debate currently scores it the same as the varied draws are.
Again, your non-argument is simply that the rule exist, not that it is logical or not. It exists. It has effects. It *can be changed*. It would have *different effects* if changed. That is the crux of the debate.
There is. The Illogicality or inconsistency here is that the game currently only allows for 2 "End States", that cover a variety of clear and/or practical endings: 1-0 or .5-.5. I propose that there should be *at least* one more end state to the game, .75-.25. Currently it would only cover stalemate, but maybe there's an argument for perpetual check, e.g., but let's leave that & "Dynamic Scoring" for another debate, if can, despite its relevancy.
Well this is just kind of silly:
You suggested it shouldn't be your responsibility, when it clearly is (you moved last, you created the situation).
You implied that you're obligated to ensure you're opponent has legal moves, you're not. Putting someone in stalemate isn't against the rules.
You're making assertions about the current rules and when I respond to them, within the context of the current rules you tell me that this is circular logic?
If I respond to your assertions about the proposed rules within the context of the current rules, sure, but slow down and try to comprehend what's actually being said.
Finally, effective dominance (stalemate?) is not the same thing as definitive dominance (checkmate), and I'd suggest that there are a number of scenarios in which stalemate does not necessarily demonstrtate even effective dominance:
Good grief - I think Monster now has a name. As well as a duplicate account. Welcome home, Monster! lol
Never said no counter example equals no precedent. I asked if there was a precedent. Totally different. But don't let mischaracterizing what I say be an impediment to advancing your argument lol
Now I know you're Monster (or his evil twin) because you're claiming responsibility has nothing to do with outcomes. Good grief. Such a sorry assertion it doesn't merit a response.
Never said one can always avoid being beaten if he uses all his resources - stop mischaracterizing what I say, Monster. I said such a person at least has resources, has a chance, has the opportunity to avoid defeat - that his fate is in his hands. Sure, if he was out of shape and didn't train, those resources won't do him much good. But it's still his responsibility - there's that word again! - to avoid defeat. In your stalemate=win proposal, the stalemated player has no resources to prevent his opponent's move that results in stalemate.
There you go again - justifying your fantasy rules by pretending they're already in place. Circular logic anyone?
Why do we even have "check" and "checkmate" rules when it's clear the purpose of the game is to capture the enemy king? Just treat the enemy king like any other piece and when it gets captured the game is over. "Check" and "checkmate" rules are simply not necessary. "Stalemate" in this case is only zugzwang, where the stalemated player loses next move.
... (except of course for the rare positions where a player can have no legal move even if he were allowed to move into check. Maybe those should still be draws).
But in what other game is a player allowed to fail to achieve the game's objective yet put his opponent in a situation where he is unable to continue and achieve a win or partial win?
In what other game is a player who fails to achieve the game's objective allowed to claim a win or partial win based on achieving a secondary objective?
Are there examples of either?
You can say, "Make stalemate a secondary objective," but in what other game does a secondary objective become the means to a win or partial win when the player fails to achieve the actual objective?
Dominance isn't enough - you've got to convert that dominance to a win. Thinking that dominance should be rewarded implies that an objective of chess should be to capture as many of your opponent's pieces while preventing as many of yours from being captured.