Stalemate needs to be abolished...

  • #161
    TheGrobe wrote:
    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
    TheGrobe wrote:

    At least that boxing comparison would make a little sense:

    Black to move -- who wins?

     

    If we change the rules to my variant... (capture the king)
    then black should lose that position because he would have to move the king down and whites king will capture it, ending the game.

    If blacks king were stuck somewhere else... then it would be for the reason that he cant move and his clock will run out.


    The reason: white could still win (because the kings can step into check, and the white king could still capture the black one if black were to place it adjacent to the white king)

    Well now this seems pretty stilly, considering we award a draw in the case where one side runs out of time but the other side doesn't have mating material.

    In this case, there's no way White can win with the lone king, so if we don't award them the draw if Black runs out of time we certainly shouldn't award them the win.

    I suppose the draw on timeout rule would also need to be revisisted?

    Man you are thick. re-read all my post, esp the parts in blue.
    Then go and sit in the naughty corner for 1 hour.

  • #162

    I think maybe you're the one being a little thick here.

    Let me clarify: If stalemate is a win for the side who stalemated their opponent, then the draw on timeout rule needs to be modified to consider "any series of legal moves leading to stalemate" instead of "any series of legal moves leading to checkmate".

    I'll be the one to take the high road here and stop short of being a patronizing prick.

  • #163
    TheGrobe wrote:

    I think maybe you're the one being a little thick here.

     

    Let me clarify: If stalemate is a win for the side who stalemated their opponent, then the draw on timeout rule needs to be modified to consider "any series of legal moves leading to stalemate" instead of "any series of legal moves leading to checkmate".

     

    I'll be the one to take the high road here and stop short of being a patronizing prick.

    Actually, it should be "Any series of legal moves leading to a king capture" with the assumption that moving into check is legal.  Basically, a KvK endgame would be sufficient material for either side to win.

  • #164

    Kens_Mom is right. If we accept NamelessMonster's suggestion, than King vs King is not a definitive draw. One king can capture the other.

    Whenever the position occured the players would make really fast moves until one's clock run out, or perharps one of them blunders and let his king be captured by the other king. That would be interesting to watch.

  • #165
    TheGrobe wrote:

    I think maybe you're the one being a little thick here.

     

    Let me clarify: If stalemate is a win for the side who stalemated their opponent, then the draw on timeout rule needs to be modified to consider "any series of legal moves leading to stalemate" instead of "any series of legal moves leading to checkmate".

     

    I'll be the one to take the high road here and stop short of being a patronizing prick.

    If the definition of checkmate was amended to include stalemate, then the draw on timeout rule could be left intact.

  • #166

    It's hard not to be a patronizing prick when you are dealing with a whiny child.

  • #167

    Either learn how to mate or quit chess.

    Avoiding stalemate is basic knowledge.

    Even amateurs know how to avoid it.

  • #168
    II-Oliveira wrote:

    Kens_Mom is right. If we accept NamelessMonster's suggestion, than King vs King is not a definitive draw. One king can capture the other.

    Whenever the position occured the players would make really fast moves until one's clock run out, or perharps one of them blunders and let his king be captured by the other king. That would be interesting to watch.

    Assuming that it's standard time control (>60min per player), it's probably more likely that a draw would be determined by 50 move rule or 3 fold repetition before either player's time runs out.  However, this doesn't make the situation any less ridiculous.

  • #169
    Yereslov wrote:

    Either learn how to mate or quit chess.

    Avoiding stalemate is basic knowledge.

    Even amateurs know how to avoid it.

    You my friend have no idea what we are talking about.
    This isnt only about 5 queens vs king.

    Getting rid of stalemate has many deep, subtle and interesting (probably not your strong suit) ramifications.

    Seeing as you have a 1200 rating, I can see why your so convinced though that amateurs can avoid it.

  • #170

    The only time I can see stalemate being a factor, other than in blitz or after a long tiring 4 hour match, is when one player has a queen that he brilliantly offers in repeated moves as he has no king moves.  It does not have to be the result of oversight of a novice type, it could genuinely be after one or two sacrifices by the defending player.  I know its unlikely but I have seen it done.  Such proper use of resources should not be punished, stalemate has its place.

  • #171
    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

    Getting rid of stalemate has many deep, subtle and interesting (probably not your strong suit) ramifications.

    Exactly, so why try to bring about such an upheaval that would ultimately change a completely functional game into something completely different?  Isn't simply creating your own variant a much better and practical alternative than trying to alter something already established?  I'm repeating myself verbatim from the other thread, but if you truly want to get rid of the stalemate rule, creating a variant would be the right way of showing the merits of abolishing stalemate to the "nay-sayers" that think it would ruin chess.

    If abolishing stalemate is truly an improvement to the rules, the no-stalemate variant would naturally become more popular than the current chess and eventually replace it as the mainstream chess.  I'm sure that's how the current rules were established centuries ago.

  • #172
    Kens_Mom wrote:
    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

    Getting rid of stalemate has many deep, subtle and interesting (probably not your strong suit) ramifications.

    Exactly, so why try to bring about such an upheaval that would ultimately change a completely functional game into something completely different?  Isn't simply creating your own variant a much better and practical alternative than trying to alter something already established?  I'm repeating myself verbatim from the other thread, but if you truly want to get rid of the stalemate rule, creating a variant would be the right way of showing the merits of abolishing stalemate to the "nay-sayers" that think it would ruin chess.

    If abolishing stalemate is truly an improvement to the rules, the no-stalemate variant would naturally become more popular than the current chess and eventually replace it as the mainstream chess.  I'm sure that's how the current rules were established centuries ago.

    +1

    I am not a big specialist in chess variants, playing only Fischer Random and Bughouse occasionaly. But it's an interesting fact that the variant with stalemate=win either has never been created or has near zero popularity. IMHO it means that the idea is not appealing to general chess public at all.

  • #173
    Yereslov wrote:

    Either learn how to mate or quit chess.

    Avoiding stalemate is basic knowledge.

    Even amateurs know how to avoid it.

    Give me a break.  You are a class D player who twice in a row fell for the Blackburn Shilling Gambit .  You have never faced a player who knew how to play for a stalemate.  The great Samuel Reshevsky fell for stalemate traps twice in his career, and you couldn't begin to fill his shoes.  Until you have side stepped stalemate traps set by an expert like Larry Evans, it is rather presumptuous of you, to say you know how to avoid them.

  • #174

    I think I am going to start a thread called:

    "Why players who think they are good, mess up and end games with a stalemate"

  • #175

    Make sure you put it in "off-topic".

  • #176
    Kens_Mom wrote:
    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

    Getting rid of stalemate has many deep, subtle and interesting (probably not your strong suit) ramifications.

    Exactly, so why try to bring about such an upheaval that would ultimately change a completely functional game into something completely different?  Isn't simply creating your own variant a much better and practical alternative than trying to alter something already established?  I'm repeating myself verbatim from the other thread, but if you truly want to get rid of the stalemate rule, creating a variant would be the right way of showing the merits of abolishing stalemate to the "nay-sayers" that think it would ruin chess.

    If abolishing stalemate is truly an improvement to the rules, the no-stalemate variant would naturally become more popular than the current chess and eventually replace it as the mainstream chess.  I'm sure that's how the current rules were established centuries ago.

    No, his plan is to win support by insulting people and generally showing what a stupid child he is.

  • #177
    TMIMITW wrote:

    Make sure you put it in "off-topic".

    It would have been funnier if you said to yourself...nah...it wouldn't matter...it will be an off topic, regardless of whether it is put into the general chess discussion forum...

    Would it offend you if I put it into general chess discussion?

    I hope it does. That is where I will put it, if I decide to make it. You could try to argue it isn't relevant there, but it is clearly a legitimate topic for general chess discussion.

  • #178
    Kens_Mom wrote:
    Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

    Getting rid of stalemate has many deep, subtle and interesting (probably not your strong suit) ramifications.

    Exactly, so why try to bring about such an upheaval that would ultimately change a completely functional game into something completely different?  Isn't simply creating your own variant a much better and practical alternative than trying to alter something already established?  I'm repeating myself verbatim from the other thread, but if you truly want to get rid of the stalemate rule, creating a variant would be the right way of showing the merits of abolishing stalemate to the "nay-sayers" that think it would ruin chess.

    If abolishing stalemate is truly an improvement to the rules, the no-stalemate variant would naturally become more popular than the current chess and eventually replace it as the mainstream chess.  I'm sure that's how the current rules were established centuries ago.

    This is a bit contrived of you.
    Your saying "go off, invent your new rules, play it on your own, leave us alone, dont mention it again, and *when* its popular then we'll play it"

    Yes, under those conditions its not gonna catch on though is it.

    If the rule is better it should be the main version, not a varient.

    Why are you so afraid of this... why cant the stalemate chess be the variant.
    If the new variant replaces it, original chess wont disappear into the ether.

  • #179

    It will be funnier if you put it in off-topic.

  • #180
    TMIMITW wrote:

    It will be funnier if you put it in off-topic.

    It would be more heavily trolled...not necessarily funnier...

or Join

Online Now