AnthonyCG wrote:
I can't believe you guys are still taking this thread seriously.
Me neither and wish they would stop feeding the troll
Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!
Sort:
the_villa wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote: you dont even need the warfare analogy...
the problem with stalemate is simply summed up:
"the whole goal, point, be and end all, is to attack the king, BUT be sure not to do too good a job of it!!.... dont attack him with too much force! or it might be a draw"
This is the contradiction which annoys me. If we have a goal, lets do it whole heartedly , not with stupid caveats and conditions
WTF is it with these troll morons and their gay photoshops ?
Is this guy in the closet or what with his carebears spiderman and pancakes and trading cards??
If you dont care why are you reading... or posting for that matter?
If your not contributing ... go play some chess.. do something useful.. dont waste space on my thread
Monster_with_no_Name wrote: WTF is it with these troll morons and their gay photoshops ?
Is this guy in the closet or what with his carebears spiderman and pancakes and trading cards??
If you dont care why are you reading... or posting for that matter?
If your not contributing ... go play some chess.. do something useful.. dont waste space on my thread
I know the truth hurts you but
Monster_with_no_Name:
This forum post just shows how simplistic and horribly skewed your vision of chess is. I'm no master, but chess is a lot more than just attacking the enemy king. Also, you can't capture the king because it's not the fact that you take it off the board that wins, it's the fact that you trap it so it has nowhere else to go and is THREATENED to be captured that wins. In doing so, it makes the equivalent of cornerning the opposing king and forcing him to surrender, which is what happened in wars at that time.
Not only that, the fact that stalemating your opponent should count as a win is hopeless. If you can trap him, but not capture him (as you say), then how have you won?
And as many other people have stated, in a king vs. king, there is NO way to force the opponent's king to stand next to yours so you can "capture it."
Why would anyone want to abolish the stalemate rule. It adds complexity to the game, and increases the skill required from the player. It is the complexity of chess that makes it so beautiful.
I think that Monster still has a bug up his butt from the game where his third pawn promoted to queen resulted in a stalemate. If you can't win a game with two queens vs. a lone king, then you should try a different game.
Aug 20, 2011
0
#254
That's from a recent game I played. I know I should have resigned, but my opponent didn't resign in the previous game and I was a bit frustrated by that and decided I was not going to resign. I'm not gonna post the game(
It's embarrasing), just the stalemate:
N2UHC wrote:
I think that Monster still has a bug up his butt from the game where his third pawn promoted to queen resulted in a stalemate. If you can't win a game with two queens vs. a lone king, then you should try a different game.
Yeah even one queen is enough
I agree with the OP, the fundamental rules and logic of chess are that each player must move in turn until a win, loss, or draw occurs (or is mutually agreed to by both players).
To insist that this happens (except perhaps for perpetual check or insufficient mating material on both sides) until one king is captured is quite in line with the fundamental rules and logic of chess as I see it, and as such the stalemate rule in question goes against the more fundamental logic of the game.
It should therefore probably be changed to make it more logical and fair for the player who has by all other accounts earned a win by his superior play, and not a tie by virtue of putting the opposing player in an hopeless (un-moveable) position, either intentionally or by a minor oversight.
As for why this rule persists into the current day despite the internal illogic and (IMO) largely unfair outcomes of it, I suggest the intruiging phenomenom of "paradigm blindness", where a group of people raised in and loyal to one way of looking at things persist in holding that viewpoint even when a better one has been demonstrated to them.
For an excellent article on this in the scientific arena, I suggest the "Closeminded Science" website (http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html), specifically the article on ridiculed & vindicated scientists, found here: http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html. Also see the work of Rupert Sheldrake @ disclose.tv, for example http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/41054/Intro_to_Morphic_Resonance___Rupert_Sheldrake_1_4/
Aug 20, 2011
0
#257
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
"Stale mates are something you must learn to avoid on the offensive, and utilize on the defensive."
How the hell is this contributing to the discussion ??
Um... Because learning to avoid stalemates or utilize them effectively will almost always make one a better chess player? I can say with confidence that learning how to perform basic mates and avoid stalemates while doing so has helped me a good bit with endgames. Even as recently as just a few games ago someone that I play regularly and knows that I'm half-decent forced me show that I know how to mate in a K+Q vs. K endgame.
oinquarki wrote:
Look dude, it's one thing to have a weird opinion, but quite another to expect everyone else to accept it, and calling them "dullards" and yourself "free minded" doesn't help.
Meh. He's already insinuated that most of us are "13 yr olds" who can't understand logic and make stupid posts. He should just take it all the way at this point! Break out the profanity!
Reb wrote:
pauix wrote:
Well then, abolish the stalemate....
Oh, and by the way, I don't like the Offside rule in football (soccer in the USA), why is it illegal to stay closer to the enemy goal than the defenders, when the game's objective is to put the ball in there? ABOLISH OFFSIDE NOW!
I simply do NOT understand the offside rule in european football ( soccer ) , I just don't get it. My only experience trying to play soccer was rather traumatic so I have a natural dislike for the game.
OFFSIDE HATERS UNITE! The rule makes no sense! xD I used to play soccer and I always would get offsides and my coach would get mad!
Tao999 wrote:
I agree with the OP, the fundamental rules and logic of chess are that each player must move in turn until a win, loss, or draw occurs (or is mutually agreed to by both players).
To insist that this happens (except perhaps for perpetual check or insufficient mating material on both sides) until one king is captured is quite in line with the fundamental rules and logic of chess as I see it, and as such the stalemate rule in question goes against the more fundamental logic of the game.
It should therefore probably be changed to make it more logical and fair for the player who has by all other accounts earned a win by his superior play, and not a tie by virtue of putting the opposing player in an hopeless (un-moveable) position, either intentionally or by a minor oversight.
As for why this rule persists into the current day despite the internal illogic and (IMO) largely unfair outcomes of it, I suggest the intruiging phenomenom of "paradigm blindness", where a group of people raised in and loyal to one way of looking at things persist in holding that viewpoint even when a better one has been demonstrated to them.
For an excellent article on this in the scientific arena, I suggest the "Closeminded Science" website (http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html), specifically the article on ridiculed & vindicated scientists, found here: http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html. Also see the work of Rupert Sheldrake @ disclose.tv, for example http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/41054/Intro_to_Morphic_Resonance___Rupert_Sheldrake_1_4/
"paradigm blindness" you mentioned is very interesting... during this debate I also noticed this... this is one eg of why these sort of discussions can be useful.
As I said before as well... every time I taught someone to play chess and taught them the stalemate rule they always laugh as a first reaction and ask "are you serious? I cant move and your about to get my king and its a draw?"
Then we get used to the rule and stop questioning it.... this is also how religion works btw... imagine a guy next to you on the train tells you he just spoke to god... you would laugh at him... but a huge proportion of people believe thats just what happened 2000 years ago, because they got habituated into that "rule" and cant even question it from their world view... its not even a question for them.
Interesting, thanks for posting!
I don't get this - we have here a group of people who decided to play certain game by certain rules. Then comes Monster_with_no_Name and says we should change the rules and play ANOTHER game instead. Responses in this thread show that almost nobody wants to play this another game. Come on - we are free people - let us play the way we want.
And something else, Monster_with_no_Name, we don't decide about rules on this site. Why don't you write to FIDE - may be they'll listen
The rules you are suggesting are not worse and not better - this is just another game, yet another chess variant. I agree your rules are more simple. So there are less words to describe them. You can save some paper and ink. But I don't think existing rules are too complicated. Millions of players don't think so. And then it comes to personal taste - for you existing rules create ridiculous situations. For me they create beauty (including the case in ChessBase article you mentioned). There is no way for us to agree because we are arguing about the personal taste and choice. So again - we are free to play the way we choose - after all it's just a game.
the problem with stalemate is simply summed up:
"the whole goal, point, be and end all, is to attack the king, BUT be sure not to do too good a job of it!!.... dont attack him with too much force! or it might be a draw"
This is the contradiction which annoys me. If we have a goal, lets do it whole heartedly , not with stupid caveats and conditions