Well very recently I lost a game to stalemate which should otherwise have been impossible to lose... I was getting tired and frustated by seemingly pointless moves until he caught me by the hoped for stalemate ! So ok all games are won by mistakes as currently noted but surely it would be better to use our time in a new game- a king cornered helpless should be a beaten king.
I'm impressed, how did you manage to lose a game by stalemate?
Well very recently I lost a game to stalemate which should otherwise have been impossible to lose... I was getting tired and frustated by seemingly pointless moves until he caught me by the hoped for stalemate ! So ok all games are won by mistakes as currently noted but surely it would be better to use our time in a new game- a king cornered helpless should be a beaten king.
I'm impressed, how did you manage to lose a game by stalemate?
of course he lost .... 1/2 a point, in a position which should be the full 1 point
A fine distinction of course- well said Sir Monster !!
I will simplify this whole thread for the dullards (Ill do your thinking for you)
Here is the problem:
In chess currently the rules contradict
1) you must *move* when it is your turn
2) it is illegal to *move* into check
in stalemate one of these rules will be broken!
What Im argueing for is that we replace 2) with the very simple "SIMPLY *CAPTURE* THE KING and the game is over"... now there is no more logical inconsistency!
Please actually THINK about this ! before you post a reply
Your rule modification is not logical for the purpose of the game. There istwo purposes in this game: To make a checkmate and to protect your king from the checkmate. If neither can checkmate then the game is draw.
To correct your point of view I'de like to ad that capturing enemy king is not part of the game. It could be logical, but it would have to have some other rules too i.e. if I move my king towards your king to the protected square and you capture my king then I should have the opportunity to capture your king and have a draw. By the way capturing enemy king is illegal by the rules of chess.
So moving your king to the check is illogical and absurd for the game.
I can't see why stalemate should win? If the purpose is to make checkmate how come stalemate could be a win? It's not checkmate! If you have enough material to win then make a checkmate. Those stalemate examples I've seen in this post are stupid! They end to the stalemate because neither player takes advantage of opponents bad moves! In the first example black can have whites queen in move 2. or 3. In the example where black makes third queen theres a checkmate in one! So should these kind of bad players deserve win when they can't checkmate? If stalemate would be win then pawn endgames would be wins for the player who haves more pawns. That would make the game very boring. After you loose one pawn you should just resign because all hope is lost. Yes, chess is also a game of hope not despair.
oh and one thing more: If chess' purpose would be to stop your opponent making a move then stalemate would be win. But the purpose is not so stalemate is not win. That's logical.
Why, having no legal moves does not indicate a weaker position.
Well very recently I lost a game to stalemate which should otherwise have been impossible to lose... I was getting tired and frustated by seemingly pointless moves until he caught me by the hoped for stalemate ! So ok all games are won by mistakes as currently noted but surely it would be better to use our time in a new game- a king cornered helpless should be a beaten king.
I'm impressed, how did you manage to lose a game by stalemate?
of course he lost .... 1/2 a point, in a position which should be the full 1 point
Draw =/= Loss.
Why, having no legal moves does not indicate a weaker position.
the rules say you must move
if you cant move , is that a position of power or weakness ?
not having options, space, choice, not being able to move, being absolutely restricted.... does it sound like power or weakness?
I will simplify this whole thread for the dullards (Ill do your thinking for you)
Here is the problem:
In chess currently the rules contradict
1) you must *move* when it is your turn
2) it is illegal to *move* into check
in stalemate one of these rules will be broken!
What Im argueing for is that we replace 2) with the very simple "SIMPLY *CAPTURE* THE KING and the game is over"... now there is no more logical inconsistency!
Please actually THINK about this ! before you post a reply
Your rule modification is not logical for the purpose of the game. There istwo purposes in this game: To make a checkmate and to protect your king from the checkmate. If neither can checkmate then the game is draw.
To correct your point of view I'de like to ad that capturing enemy king is not part of the game. It could be logical, but it would have to have some other rules too i.e. if I move my king towards your king to the protected square and you capture my king then I should have the opportunity to capture your king and have a draw. By the way capturing enemy king is illegal by the rules of chess.
So moving your king to the check is illogical and absurd for the game.
I can't see why stalemate should win? If the purpose is to make checkmate how come stalemate could be a win? It's not checkmate! If you have enough material to win then make a checkmate. Those stalemate examples I've seen in this post are stupid! They end to the stalemate because neither player takes advantage of opponents bad moves! In the first example black can have whites queen in move 2. or 3. In the example where black makes third queen theres a checkmate in one! So should these kind of bad players deserve win when they can't checkmate? If stalemate would be win then pawn endgames would be wins for the player who haves more pawns. That would make the game very boring. After you loose one pawn you should just resign because all hope is lost. Yes, chess is also a game of hope not despair.
At least we agee on one point:
Those stalemate examples I've seen in this post are stupid!
so why should we keep a rule that leads to stupid things?
At least we agee on one point:
Those stalemate examples I've seen in this post are stupid!
so why should we keep a rule that leads to stupid things?
Those stalemate examples are stupid only because those games are plaied stupidly. Idea of stalemate in itself is not stupid nor is stalemate that comes from real game where stalemate is loosing players last resort of saving even something.
This is the war you can not win so why won't you just give up and accept that there is stalemate? Is it that that you are so fascinated of stalemate that you put yourself in that kind of state even in here?
Havumaki wrote:
"If stalemate would be win then pawn endgames would be wins for the player who haves more pawns. That would make the game very boring. After you loose one pawn you should just resign because all hope is lost. Yes, chess is also a game of hope not despair. "
First of all, this is not true. Pawn endgames are more complicated than that. True it would make a lot more endgames winnable which is the point. If you think that chess would be very boring if there were less draws, I would have to say not many would agree with you.
if checkmate=victory and checkmate≠stalemate then stalemate≠victory
complexity for the sake of complexity is stupid... chess is already complex, we dont need to add these stupid rules to bail people out of lost positions.
there is elegant complexity where rules which are harmonious and build on each other, and then there are ugly forced complexity like that turd of a movie inception
I just had an idea from my previous comment. If stalemate isn't victory then it's loss so player who corners others king will lose. So if your opponent can't move then you lose! That is marvellous idea!
At least we agee on one point:
Those stalemate examples I've seen in this post are stupid!
so why should we keep a rule that leads to stupid things?
Those stalemate examples are stupid only because those games are plaied stupidly. Idea of stalemate in itself is not stupid nor is stalemate that comes from real game where stalemate is loosing players last resort of saving even something.
This is the war you can not win so why won't you just give up and accept that there is stalemate? Is it that that you are so fascinated of stalemate that you put yourself in that kind of state even in here?
Its not that play thats stupid... its the situation where the opponent is completely overwhelmed and ristricted, trapped and cant move without being killed AND its a draw... thats whats stupid... cant you see that?
I just had an idea from my previous comment. If stalemate isn't victory then it's loss so player who corners others king will lose. So if your opponent can't move then you lose! That is marvellous idea!
yes, and we should walk with our eye lashes and eat with our feet
Its not that play thats stupid... its the situation where the opponent is completely overwhelmed and ristricted, trapped and cant move without being killed AND its a draw... thats whats stupid... cant you see that?
I think that many others have said this and I said it before: Chess is not killing, eating or capturing opponents king. There is no such thing. It's about making checkmate and it's complete different thing than to capture or kill.
Well very recently I lost a game to stalemate which should otherwise have been impossible to lose... I was getting tired and frustated by seemingly pointless moves until he caught me by the hoped for stalemate ! So ok all games are won by mistakes as currently noted but surely it would be better to use our time in a new game- a king cornered helpless should be a beaten king... and should abdicate early !
(Edited).