'Cause it's a conspiracy man. FIDE's got everyone in their coat pocket....
Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!
Sort:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote
Of course chess is a war.
Go to any dictionary and check a definition of war and that of chess. You are not able to make even the simplest argument correctly. And this guy was talking about logic...
Reb wrote:
This is a very silly idea imo as it would change chess too much. K+p v K endings that are book draws ( due to stalemate ) would change and be lost now for the stalemated side. It would also be possible for the side with the pawn to actually lose if they are stalemated which would violate another rule of chess : you cannot win if no legal series of moves can lead to checkmate.
Monster... you did not respond to this point, of did I miss your response ? If the change is made that you desire it would mean the person with nothing but a lone king could win the game ! You don't think that to be ridiculous ? It violates the rule I mentioned about no possible checkmate being possible as well . If I am in an ending with K+P v lone K the worst that can happen to me is a draw and you want to change it so that I could possibly lose ?! May it NEVER happen !
NM Reb, you are making a very good point. The problem is the guy wouldn't listen. I didn't see him to answer any serious arguments.
Reb wrote:
Reb wrote:
This is a very silly idea imo as it would change chess too much. K+p v K endings that are book draws ( due to stalemate ) would change and be lost now for the stalemated side. It would also be possible for the side with the pawn to actually lose if they are stalemated which would violate another rule of chess : you cannot win if no legal series of moves can lead to checkmate.
Monster... you did not respond to this point, of did I miss your response ? If the change is made that you desire it would mean the person with nothing but a lone king could win the game ! You don't think that to be ridiculous ? It violates the rule I mentioned about no possible checkmate being possible as well . If I am in an ending with K+P v lone K the worst that can happen to me is a draw and you want to change it so that I could possibly lose ?! May it NEVER happen !
the goal of the game in my opinion should be to capture the king.
If the lone king can do it, he is winning. I dont think this is ridiculous.
(is it ridiculous I can mate you with a much lesser army after 10 sacrafices? no its not)
If we are talking ridiculous, pls go thru the many stalemate examples many have posted... if they are not ridiculous I dont know what is?
And yes why shouldnt most K+P v K be winning ?
Look Im arguing that checkmate is inelegant
"your king is in check and it cant move to any square without being in check"
its much more elegant to have the simple rule
"capture the king"
and it eliminates the need to break rules (such as you must move and its illegal to step into check)
Pls actually read the posts not just comment randomly
i get out from this discussion, because no matter to talk about, stalemate is a right thing to declare a draw. bye
Monster, exactly how will you resolve this position?
rooperi wrote:
Monster, exactly how will you resolve this position?
you idiot... how can you be such a goose?
we discussed this 3 times already.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THESE IDIOTS???
white will move to his only legal sqaure and then black will capture the king and win.
Most stalemates can be avoided by being careful when you are in the process of checkmating your opponent. I dont like any change that would make it possible for a player with nothing but his king left to win and thats what you are proposing. To me this would be far more ridiculous than anything else mentioned so far in this thread. There are better ways to fight against short colorless draws in tournament chess than changing the rules of the game.
NestorCarlos wrote:
i get out from this discussion, because no matter to talk about, stalemate is a right thing to declare a draw. bye
thank you nestor for your massive and very enlightening contribution...
what an idiot! why bother posting that? This place is full of fools
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
rooperi wrote:
Monster, exactly how will you resolve this position?
you idiot... how can you be such a goose?
we discussed this 3 times already.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THESE IDIOTS???
white will move to his only legal sqaure and then black will capture the king and win.
1st. Don't call me an idiot, you insignificant little worm
2nd. Exactly what would you consider the only legal square, b7 or b8? Or did you magnificence miss that there are actually 2 squares?
3rd. If White should move Kb8, how are you going to capture the King, as this would involve moving into check, which you yourself has admitted is illegal.
Reb wrote:
Most stalemates can be avoided by being careful when you are in the process of checkmating your opponent. I dont like any change that would make it possible for a player with nothing but his king left to win and thats what you are proposing. To me this would be far more ridiculous than anything else mentioned so far in this thread. There are better ways to fight against short colorless draws in tournament chess than changing the rules of the game.
did you see the chessbase article i posted in the very first few pages of this thread?
there are very many VERY complicated stalemate themes (where the opponent goes into total suicide mode! [and which are a total farce[ ) that could EASILY catch out GMs as well.... read it!
So let me get this straight:
"I dont like any change that would make it possible for a player with nothing but his king left to win"
this bothers you because a king could capture the other king... but if i have a total army all out attacking your king and you cant move...... its a draw and your FINE with that !?
Why do i argue with such people ?
rooperi wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
rooperi wrote:
Monster, exactly how will you resolve this position?
you idiot... how can you be such a goose?
we discussed this 3 times already.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THESE IDIOTS???
white will move to his only legal sqaure and then black will capture the king and win.
1st. Don't call me an idiot, you insignificant little worm
2nd. Exactly what would you consider the only legal square, b7 or b8? Or did you magnificence miss that there are actually 2 squares?
3rd. If White should move Kb8, how are you going to capture the King, as this would involve moving into check, which you yourself has admitted is illegal.
well this post proves your an idiot and havent been following my arguments.
I would also abolish the rule "you cant step into check!" how many times have i said it ?? GO BACK AND READ THE POSTS.
white would move to either square... black would capture the king and the game is over!
is it so hard to follow ?
Why would we need to abolish stalemate? In war vocabulary, it means when the sides can make no progress and they won't give in, resulting in a draw. I'm just confused if a tournament says most points win, ignoring the stalemate rule. It just doesn't sound right unfortunately, no offense or anything.
uri65 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote
Of course chess is a war.
Go to any dictionary and check a definition of war and that of chess. You are not able to make even the simplest argument correctly. And this guy was talking about logic...
from merriam webster dictionary
war:
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
Another moron busted!
(I should charge for the entertainment im providing here)
'checkmate is inelegant'
'it would be more elegant to have the simple rule "capture the king"'
Monster, I think you serously lack an appreciation for the beauty of the game. Chess is the hardest, smartest, best thought out game I've ever played and believe me - those guys thought of EVERYTHING. The above suggestion to me is more alarming even than the original proposition that the 'Stalemate rule needs to be abolished', as every game in this scenario would come down to a melee of force and seriously undermine the complexities of the pieces, positions and peculiarities which make this the best game there is.
By all means, you work away and play your capture the king game, I'll stick to the chess if it's all the same to you.
Also, if you end up stalemated it can only be described as a fault on your part, be it that you moved into a silly place and offered your opponent the draw on a plate, or failed to see that you were walking into a forced draw endgame in the exchanges that preceded it. Don't blame the rules, learn how not to do it. As you can see, my rating is far below yours and I don't pretend to be a chess god, but it's one of the many facets of the game I'm studying!
Aug 20, 2011
0
#199
yeah but with that monster, he doesn't want to admitted that he made a bad move to get himself into a stalemated.
pixiesean wrote:
'checkmate is inelegant'
'it would be more elegant to have the simple rule "capture the king"'
Monster, I think you serously lack an appreciation for the beauty of the game. Chess is the hardest, smartest, best thought out game I've ever played and believe me - those guys thought of EVERYTHING. The above suggestion to me is more alarming even than the original proposition that the 'Stalemate rule needs to be abolished', as every game in this scenario would come down to a melee of force and seriously undermine the complexities of the pieces, positions and peculiarities which make this the best game there is.
By all means, you work away and play your capture the king game, I'll stick to the chess if it's all the same to you.
Also, if you end up stalemated it can only be described as a fault on your part, be it that you moved into a silly place and offered your opponent the draw on a plate, or failed to see that you were walking into a forced draw endgame in the exchanges that preceded it. Don't blame the rules, learn how not to do it. As you can see, my rating is far below yours and I don't pretend to be a chess god, but it's one of the many facets of the game I'm studying!
Mate I dont have a problem with people like you... youve obviously thought out your reasons and I respect that... most of the morons here are just shouting me down with stupid trolling ... and things like "its the rules because its the rules"
About the inelegance... what i mean is, it is like using a double negative
"I didnt not go to the shop" (=checkmate rule)
"your king is in check and you cant move it without stepping into check
(in other words it will be captured next move...)
"I went to the shop" (=capture the king rule)
(king is captured)
The stalemate just gives even more awesome sides of chess, because of all the amazing tactics there is with it.
totally agree buddy!!! i think its funny that a guy could have totally overwhelming force and be outsmarted by a cunning plan (baldrick-blackadder) and amusing to see the victims reaction in over the board play!!