How can something be abolished that happens naturally within the game?
Too many posts to read. I will settle this right now---Play checkers, if you cant move you lose.
If a player cant make a legal move, his clock should be left to run out. (this is the logical conclusion when you take all the other rules into consideration) He cornered himself, commited suicide, he doesnt get a free pass. I cant choose to pass my turn at other times.
All too often in blitz with 10 seconds left and about to queen some disaster happens where the guy cant move and he is dominated. Logical things to do: lets give him 1/2 a point ??
To all the fools who want to comment: "your saying this because you drew a blitz game" of course it is you fool. But more to the point, also because stalemate is not a logical rule.
Please also do not say it is my fault that I let it happen. It is you who cant move, that is your fault. I can still move.
what is stalemate
Having just read a post this parrot posted 3 years ago (and having no idea why I chose this topic for my argument) I am obviosly not surprised that some people -4 of them- have in the last three years kept the heart of this dead topic still bleating.
The post from unggaunga argues from the point of 'logic'. The only logic in chess is that it's a particular game with particular rules that humans have played for a very long time. Certainly longer than rugby, hockey, scrabble, Tour of Dooty... you get the idea. Logic is not the basis of the game: convention is the basis. 'Bishops' -in real life- do not confine their movements to diagonal pathways. A 'pawn' is more of a figure of speech than a living creature. 'Castles', hopefully, do not move at all. And Queens, quite often are the 'power behind the throne', not the most awful warrior in the battle. Chess is a game with rules established over centuries. Applying logic to it is...illogical. Try explaining the logic of the 'offside rule' in soccer to, say, your wife or some other significant other.
If you want to play with logic, consider the logic applied to war during the long history of Chess. As chess is often seen a as a represerntation of war ( but without all the gore, mud and horror), so consider the historical nature of war. Seldom was a King's death the goal of war. Kings were special. Kings were sacrosanct in their persons and, even in defeat, nearer In nature to their fellow absolute rulers than to the subjects over whom they ruled. Kings didn't kill other Kings! Take their treasure and tax their lands, by all means, but leave them their lives. Even Buonaparte -after decades of attempted World conquest- was left to live; to live and to grieve to death on an isolated rock in the South Atlantic. It wasn't until the Nuremburg Trial after WW2, (or: WW1,part 2) that vanquished 'Kings', were tried -and executed- for waging war. (Or,to be cynical, for losing that war.)
Actually, when all is said and done... if you don't like the rules of Chess, as they are, take your board and go home. Stick with playing shoot-em-up games, and playing with yourself on a computer.
Great comment, timbeau. I can't believe this thread is still ongoing. Btw, I never got the offsides rule in soccer either. I think lots of things in soccer should be changed. IMO, it should be played on a smaller field (so there will be more goals), the offsides penalty should be abolished and when the ball accidentally hits someone in the elbow, it shouldn't be a hand ball penalty resulting in a free penalty kick. That's just absurd. Also, each team should be allowed as many substitutions as it wants. In contrast, things I would change about chess .............. nothing.
1) In the army/war analogy: If an army/king are immobilized/surrounded/dominated they lose.
2) In the "spirit-of-the-game(tm)"/existing chess rules: if you won't move your clock runs out.
3) (same category as 2): The whole point of the game is to target the king/cut him completely off--why then add a rule--that just when you've done your job--now you have to invert what you've done--and make sure now the king isnt attacked "too well"?
It like removing the dunking rule in basketball, its like in soccer when a striker rounds a goalie, he has to wait till he gets back in his goal before he can shoot.
Abolishing stalemate also decreases draws, and rewards players with more material. (eg often [P+B+K vs K] is a draw because of stalemate (also not in the spirit of the game--an already too drawish game)
After the WCC match Carlsen will announce that he wants the "capture the king variant" to be the new standard.
View chess in its Historical context.
Kings very seldom suffered death following defeat in war.
Kings were Kings... different beings from you and I.
After WW1, none of the Kings - George; Willhelm; or Alexander were 'killed''.
That's what made Nuremburg novel: the losing leaders were tried and some executed for waging war.
Even Napoleon (for whom many people alive then, was as wicked as the Nazis were to become for us now) -after sneaking off from exile in Elba (''able was I ere...etc'') was still only exiled after his defeat at Waterloo -a hundred days and another couple of hundred thousand dead later.
Please don't reduce Chess to another ''slam/dunk'' piece of ephemera. (How long has Basketball been around?!). Do you still play with, say, a pogo stick?
Yesterday is last year's future... what gives us the right to judge everything on the manners or on the morality of today!
(*dear JeffGreen333 I just then scrolled up and saw and saw your post following mine of months ago! Honestly!! Please believe me when I say that my life is not quite as pathetic as it might seem!)
And hey, M with No Name... I have no idea who or what that cartoon character is, or to what it refers...
In 30 years, neither will you (or you'll just be embarassed).
You dont like basketball = you are racist.