I don't think it is in FIDE's best interest to do this change, because I think they would lose a heck of a lot of players.
Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!
Sort:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
rule 1)you *must move* under *all* circumstances... OR resign OR let your clock run out.
I am sorry, there is no such rule. Go to FIDE site and read "Laws of Chess".
Consider stalemate an exception to the "you must move" rule. No matter how illogical it seems (If we want stalemate to be a draw, we shouldn't have to justify ourselves with logic), it is a very good twist to the game and a good saving grace for a defender in an endgame (attackers should learn to avoid this). OP, just because you go on a hissy-fit about a rule doesn't mean FIDE is magically gonna heed it and actually change it. Stalemate is a draw, and it's a draw for a reason.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Simply put "Stalemate" in chess occurs: "when a player, whos turn it is to move, has no legal moves left to make... this is deemed a draw".
We "Anti-Stalematers" would like you "Pro-Stalematers" to consider a few arguements for why the stalemate rule should be abolished.
And then we will provide a simple, elegant alternative solution.
So then, firstly lets look at why we should abolish stalemate?
* Stalemate used to be a win, until it was changed to be a draw. (Ill leave it to you to do research on it if your interested in it)
* Contradictory and obscure nature of the current rules
ie
1) You must *move* when it is your turn (you cannot "pass" your move). Even if it will mean "suicide" you *must move* if you *can*. So then when you cant move (which means you are "passing/not fullfilling" your move) why should that be rewarded with 1/2 a point ? If we punish people in bad positions by forcing them to move... why do we not punish the stalemated player by also "forcing him to "move"".
2) The clock in chess is the "life span of the king!" Chess is all about whos king dies FIRST. If a player cannot legally move, we should "fall back" on the clock to decide who wins. (ie the clock of the player who cant move will run out because he cant move!)
3) It is illegal to *move* into check (ie even though the enemy king is all surrounded in all out attack, he cant be killed *because* he cant "legally" step into check). This is like a lawyer agruing for silly legal technicalities to get his defendent off the hook, when everyone knows the logical outcome of the courtcase. (why is this the case? We will come back to this in the 2nd part of this write-up)
* If you cannot move, you are powerless, without options, restricted, oppressed and dominated and violating the spirit of the "you must move and not pass your move" rule. Why should you get 1/2 a point?
* So we see the whole plan and point of the game is to put an attack on the king (directly or indirectly ie queenside play first)
But then the stalemate rule comes along (*just when your about to do that*) and says:
"ok... but dont attack the king too well! Dont do your job too well, be careful to prance about the king when you are totally dominating him" otherwise it could all end easily in a draw! Stalemate is the ultimate mating net... The stronger the attack you mount on the lone king, the more chance of stalemate.
* Making a stalemate a win would in no way make endgame play any easier. In fact, it would probably make it harder.
It's true that K+P vs K would be easier, but K+R+P vs K+R would be tougher. In general, K+R+P vs K+R would still be drawn for most positions that are drawn under the current rules, but make a stalemate a win, and a fair percentage of K+R+P vs K+R become winnable.
To give another example, K+B vs K or K+N vs K would now be winnable in some situations, but not the general case -- everything would depend on how close the opposing king is to the corner.
* chess is, by nature, already very drawish to begin with... we dont need to give players (who have been outplayed) cheap tricks for more draws ?
* Capablanca, Reti, Lasker, Nimzowitsch and many other top players have argued for a change as well.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#Proposed_rule_change
* an example game, where a very high level player escapes after being outplayed http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7463
*Ive taught many people chess... they all laugh at the stalemate rule as illogical. Probably you did too when you first saw it...
* rules change all the time in other games (eg soccer offside... ) in chess as well... we have many different time controls etc.
* Some argue Draws by forcing stalemate can be "artistic". Agreed, however, winning by forcing stalemate is also "artistic".
Solution: (ok lets not be so negative, lets give a positive solution as well!)
The goal of chess should simply be "to *capture!* the king."
It should also be legal to "step into check" (in which case the opponent would capture the king on the next move and win)
This simple change, would solve the whole stalemate problem and make the chess rules more logically consistent.
Its much more logical, elegant and simple to have the one rule "capture the king and you win"... as opposed to the current definition of mate: "where the king cant legally move without moving into check" (in the rule we are proposing it is already implicit ... that you shouldnt move your king into check, why do we put silly restrictions on it... if the opponent wants to move his king where it will be captured OR he is forced to..... let him! Why make it illegal ?)...
In stalemate, you can not move, so that doesn't work.
Aug 28, 2011
0
#546
I admit I haven't read all 31 current pages, so this may have been mentioned before, but I'd like to point out that the stalemate rule ALSO can apply to a situation in which a player is nowhere near a check and yet has no legal move. This kind of situation, while rare, would not be covered under the "make a move even if your king will get captured" proposal.
Ok, that might not make sense in words, so let's have a diagram with what I mean:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
Consider stalemate an exception to the "you must move" rule. No matter how illogical it seems (If we want stalemate to be a draw, we shouldn't have to justify ourselves with logic), it is a very good twist to the game and a good saving grace for a defender in an endgame (attackers should learn to avoid this). OP, just because you go on a hissy-fit about a rule doesn't mean FIDE is magically gonna heed it and actually change it. Stalemate is a draw, and it's a draw for a reason.
Although we are both in pro-stalemate camp I have to disagree with your argumentation. It is not an exception. It is just one of the scenarios that end the game immediately, others being checkmate, resignation, 3-fold repetition etc.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Simply put "Stalemate" in chess occurs: "when a player, whos turn it is to move, has no legal moves left to make... this is deemed a draw".
We "Anti-Stalematers" would like you "Pro-Stalematers" to consider a few arguements for why the stalemate rule should be abolished.
And then we will provide a simple, elegant alternative solution.
So then, firstly lets look at why we should abolish stalemate?
* Stalemate used to be a win, until it was changed to be a draw. (Ill leave it to you to do research on it if your interested in it)
* Contradictory and obscure nature of the current rules
ie
1) You must *move* when it is your turn (you cannot "pass" your move). Even if it will mean "suicide" you *must move* if you *can*. So then when you cant move (which means you are "passing/not fullfilling" your move) why should that be rewarded with 1/2 a point ? If we punish people in bad positions by forcing them to move... why do we not punish the stalemated player by also "forcing him to "move"".
2) The clock in chess is the "life span of the king!" Chess is all about whos king dies FIRST. If a player cannot legally move, we should "fall back" on the clock to decide who wins. (ie the clock of the player who cant move will run out because he cant move!)
3) It is illegal to *move* into check (ie even though the enemy king is all surrounded in all out attack, he cant be killed *because* he cant "legally" step into check). This is like a lawyer agruing for silly legal technicalities to get his defendent off the hook, when everyone knows the logical outcome of the courtcase. (why is this the case? We will come back to this in the 2nd part of this write-up)
* If you cannot move, you are powerless, without options, restricted, oppressed and dominated and violating the spirit of the "you must move and not pass your move" rule. Why should you get 1/2 a point?
* So we see the whole plan and point of the game is to put an attack on the king (directly or indirectly ie queenside play first)
But then the stalemate rule comes along (*just when your about to do that*) and says:
"ok... but dont attack the king too well! Dont do your job too well, be careful to prance about the king when you are totally dominating him" otherwise it could all end easily in a draw! Stalemate is the ultimate mating net... The stronger the attack you mount on the lone king, the more chance of stalemate.
* Making a stalemate a win would in no way make endgame play any easier. In fact, it would probably make it harder.
It's true that K+P vs K would be easier, but K+R+P vs K+R would be tougher. In general, K+R+P vs K+R would still be drawn for most positions that are drawn under the current rules, but make a stalemate a win, and a fair percentage of K+R+P vs K+R become winnable.
To give another example, K+B vs K or K+N vs K would now be winnable in some situations, but not the general case -- everything would depend on how close the opposing king is to the corner.
* chess is, by nature, already very drawish to begin with... we dont need to give players (who have been outplayed) cheap tricks for more draws ?
* Capablanca, Reti, Lasker, Nimzowitsch and many other top players have argued for a change as well.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#Proposed_rule_change
* an example game, where a very high level player escapes after being outplayed http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7463
*Ive taught many people chess... they all laugh at the stalemate rule as illogical. Probably you did too when you first saw it...
* rules change all the time in other games (eg soccer offside... ) in chess as well... we have many different time controls etc.
* Some argue Draws by forcing stalemate can be "artistic". Agreed, however, winning by forcing stalemate is also "artistic".
Solution: (ok lets not be so negative, lets give a positive solution as well!)
The goal of chess should simply be "to *capture!* the king."
It should also be legal to "step into check" (in which case the opponent would capture the king on the next move and win)
This simple change, would solve the whole stalemate problem and make the chess rules more logically consistent.
Its much more logical, elegant and simple to have the one rule "capture the king and you win"... as opposed to the current definition of mate: "where the king cant legally move without moving into check" (in the rule we are proposing it is already implicit ... that you shouldnt move your king into check, why do we put silly restrictions on it... if the opponent wants to move his king where it will be captured OR he is forced to..... let him! Why make it illegal ?)...
Yes, they argued and failed, so I am positive this argument will fail, too.
I feel compelled to comment, though at this point I don't think anyone will ever read it. The stalemate rule is a good one as it stands. It is not true that the side stalemated has been out played: King + Pawn can be stalemated by a lone King. This would hardly be a demonstration of having "outplayed" one's opponent. To lose in this way would be unacceptable (and illogical, ridiculous) to my mind.
I also do not think it is true that altering the stalemate rule would remedy the drawishness of chess at the higher levels (let's face it, most of us don't have to worry about this). The opposite may well be true as players now willing to shed a pawn for the initiative, attacking prospects, a positional edge, development, or piece activity might well be less willing to do so knowing that the vast majority of K+P vs K positions will be lost for them if their opponent can consolidate the pawn advantage given them. Taking the risk of sacrificing a pawn for non-materiral advantages should be encouraged with more prospects of salvaging a draw should things go arwy not discouraged by eliminating the drawing chances that stalemate now gives.
I also think it is right for the game that one side be able to demonstrate a clear superiority in order to claim a win. This is a sensible thought by no means unprecedented in the realm of sporting events, for example ping pong, tennis, and volley ball, where a single point is not enough to win. To change this rule would destroy what is perhaps best in these games, and so I believe it is with chess, too. And dare I say that wanting best one's opponent clearly is sporting?
Let's face it: to win by stalemate is analogous to kissing one's sibling, which is to say, unsatisfying. There is a reason they dubbed such a mate "stale". I for one, ladies and gentlemen, have and will always prefer to check before I mate.
hondaguy wrote:
I feel compelled to comment, though at this point I don't think anyone will ever read it. The stalemate rule is a good one as it stands. It is not true that the side stalemated has been out played: King + Pawn can be stalemated by a lone King. This would hardly be a demonstration of having "outplayed" one's opponent. To lose in this way would be unacceptable (and illogical, ridiculous) to my mind.
I also do not think it is true that altering the stalemate rule would remedy the drawishness of chess at the higher levels (let's face it, most of us don't have to worry about this). The opposite may well be true as players now willing to shed a pawn for the initiative, attacking prospects, a positional edge, development, or piece activity might well be less willing to do so knowing that the vast majority of K+P vs K positions will be lost for them if their opponent can consolidate the pawn advantage given them. Taking the risk of sacrificing a pawn for non-materiral advantages should be encouraged with more prospects of salvaging a draw should things go arwy not discouraged by eliminating the drawing chances that stalemate now gives.
I also think it is right for the game that one side be able to demonstrate a clear superiority in order to claim a win. This is a sensible thought by no means unprecedented in the realm of sporting events, for example ping pong, tennis, and volley ball, where a single point is not enough to win. To change this rule would destroy what is perhaps best in these games, and so I believe it is with chess, too. And dare I say that wanting best one's opponent clearly is sporting?
Let's face it: to win by stalemate is analogous to kissing one's sibling, which is to say, unsatisfying. There is a reason they dubbed such a mate "stale". I for one, ladies and gentlemen, have and will always prefer to check before I mate.
I also think it is right for the game that one side be able to demonstrate a clear superiority in order to claim a win.
like when i have 3 queens surrounding your lone king and you cant make a legal move ?
uri65 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
uri65 wrote:
It is very sad that anti-stalematers keep repeating same nonsense over and over. Actually there are 2 types of false arguments they use:
claiming that existing rules are contradictory comparing chess to warAnd I have to say that stubborn repetition of this nonsense was probably a reason of all those penguins and other pictures we could see here.
There were also few anti-stalemate arguments that I find valid:
rules will be simplified. I mean proposal of Monster_with_no_Name that declares "capture of king" should be the goal of chess. Well that's simple and consistent and treats checkmate, stalemate and accidentally moving king into check with same one rule. However I find that complexity of existing rules is really the least problem we have in chess. abolishing stalemate rule will not decrease complexity and beauty, it will just modify it. That't very interesting point but it needs further investigation. abolishing stalemate rule will desrease number of draws. That might be true but I think there are other less radical ways (Sofia rules, scoring system)claiming that existing rules are contradictory
Well they are...
rule 1)you must move under all circumstances... OR resign OR let your clock run out.
rule 2)you cant move... ok no worries its a draw.
we should apply 1) to stalemate, not make silly addendums.
comparing chess to war
We dont need to compare chess to war... chess *is* a war...
2 opposing sets of forces compete to achieve their aims... this is the abstract definition of war... just because there is no machine gun fire or cluster bombs doesnt mean its not a war.
Did you ever read what was posted on both subjects???
Well I'll try to be patient again: by existing rules stalemate ends the game immidiately. Nobody has to move after that and the closk is irrelevant too. Is it clear enough?
Regarding chess and war I tried to refer you to a dictionary definition of both before. So (with some simplification to save the space):
chess is a game war is a conflict between states OR struggle or competition between opposing forcesThere is no way to derive "chess is a war" from these 2 definitions. And if you do you are just unable to make simple logical deduction correctly.
Well I'll try to be patient again: by existing rules stalemate ends the game immidiately. Nobody has to move after that and the closk is irrelevant too. Is it clear enough?
Im patient as well, because it seems we are back to the "rule is the rule" therefore it is logical. Again, we are debating the rule..
Rules need to have some basis in reality... Every game humans play, has some basis in the real world... in the real world nothing is for free
If I have backed myself into a corner, from my own decisions, where I cant move...thats not a stalemate, thats a lost position.
I have given 3 or so good reasons why I think this should not be the rule. Please give me 1 reason why it should be ?(apart from"its the existing rule")
If you cant move and i can, we are certainly not equal. It doesnt matter how much force you have, if you cant move or use it ... it is useless. If i can move and use my force its clear Im in a more powerful position. and should be rewarded for it.
Why should we need to justify why stalemate is a draw with logic? That's like saying that before a baseball game, when someone says that a foul ball should be a homerun, the rest of the players have to prove that the current rule is logical. Like I have said before, if you want stalemate to be a loss that bad, cteate a chess variant. Throw a tantrum on the chess.com forums, but the rules aren't going to change. Claim that the current rule is illogical, but the rules aren't going to change. Back your proposed rule with as much logic as you want, but guess what, the rules aren't going to change.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
uri65 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
uri65 wrote:
It is very sad that anti-stalematers keep repeating same nonsense over and over. Actually there are 2 types of false arguments they use:
claiming that existing rules are contradictory comparing chess to warAnd I have to say that stubborn repetition of this nonsense was probably a reason of all those penguins and other pictures we could see here.
There were also few anti-stalemate arguments that I find valid:
rules will be simplified. I mean proposal of Monster_with_no_Name that declares "capture of king" should be the goal of chess. Well that's simple and consistent and treats checkmate, stalemate and accidentally moving king into check with same one rule. However I find that complexity of existing rules is really the least problem we have in chess. abolishing stalemate rule will not decrease complexity and beauty, it will just modify it. That't very interesting point but it needs further investigation. abolishing stalemate rule will desrease number of draws. That might be true but I think there are other less radical ways (Sofia rules, scoring system)claiming that existing rules are contradictory
Well they are...
rule 1)you must move under all circumstances... OR resign OR let your clock run out.
rule 2)you cant move... ok no worries its a draw.
we should apply 1) to stalemate, not make silly addendums.
comparing chess to war
We dont need to compare chess to war... chess *is* a war...
2 opposing sets of forces compete to achieve their aims... this is the abstract definition of war... just because there is no machine gun fire or cluster bombs doesnt mean its not a war.
Did you ever read what was posted on both subjects???
Well I'll try to be patient again: by existing rules stalemate ends the game immidiately. Nobody has to move after that and the closk is irrelevant too. Is it clear enough?
Regarding chess and war I tried to refer you to a dictionary definition of both before. So (with some simplification to save the space):
chess is a game war is a conflict between states OR struggle or competition between opposing forcesThere is no way to derive "chess is a war" from these 2 definitions. And if you do you are just unable to make simple logical deduction correctly.
Well I'll try to be patient again: by existing rules stalemate ends the game immidiately. Nobody has to move after that and the closk is irrelevant too. Is it clear enough?
Im patient as well, because it seems we are back to the "rule is the rule" therefore it is logical. Again, we are debating the rule..
Rules need to have some basis in reality... Every game humans play, has some basis in the real world... in the real world nothing is for free
If I have backed myself into a corner, from my own decisions, where I cant move...thats not a stalemate, thats a lost position.
I have given 3 or so good reasons why I think this should not be the rule. Please give me 1 reason why it should be ?(apart from"its the existing rule")
If you cant move and i can, we are certainly not equal. It doesnt matter how much force you have, if you cant move or use it ... it is useless. If i can move and use my force its clear Im in a more powerful position. and should be rewarded for it.
You are trying to avoid answering what I said and change the subject again by talking about "real" world.
I know it's difficult to defend such crappy statements as "existing rules are contradictory" and "chess is a war"
Good luck man
Note also that en passant isn't logical either. Neither is castling. But yet those rules live on. And so will stalemate being a draw. Since you only have one supporter in this hissy-fit, this is pretty futile. Stalemate is a draw, and it will be a draw for centuries to come.
Pawns being able to advance two squares on their first move isn't logical, either.
checkmateibeatu wrote:
Note also that en passant isn't logical either. Neither is castling. But yet those rules live on. And so will stalemate being a draw. Since you only have one supporter in this hissy-fit, this is pretty futile. Stalemate is a draw, and it will be a draw for centuries to come.
Yes you are right, those rules are slightly contradictory "special cases", "exceptions". Again I have no problem with these, because they are so slightly contradictory.
The stalemate rule though is on a whole other level of contradiction. It turns the game on its head!
ie
You have to move even if its to your "suicide" OR run out your clock and die by the clock! (in other words moving is all important)
AND then to turn around and say....
"You cant move now?..." "Oh, dont worry thats fine, you 2 are now equal" (in other words: moving isnt so important after all... you can pass it, now that you have nothing left and are powerless to move)
These two things contradict each other on a whole different level than .... a pawn can move 2 squares for 1st move... and then only 1.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
Note also that en passant isn't logical either. Neither is castling. But yet those rules live on. And so will stalemate being a draw. Since you only have one supporter in this hissy-fit, this is pretty futile. Stalemate is a draw, and it will be a draw for centuries to come.
Yes you are right, those rules are slightly contradictory "special cases", "exceptions". Again I have no problem with these, because they are so slightly contradictory.
The stalemate rule though is on a whole other level of contradiction. It turns the game on its head!
ie
You have to move even if its to your "suicide" OR run out your clock and die by the clock! (in other words moving is all important)
AND then to turn around and say....
"You cant move now?..." "Oh, dont worry thats fine, you 2 are now equal" (in other words: moving isnt so important after all... you can pass it, now that you have nothing left and are powerless to move)
These two things contradict each other on a whole different level than .... a pawn can move 2 squares for 1st move... and then only 1.
So is stalemate! There is little difference when it comes to how contradictory they are. The point is all of them are EXCEPTIONS to rules.
checkmateibeatu wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
Note also that en passant isn't logical either. Neither is castling. But yet those rules live on. And so will stalemate being a draw. Since you only have one supporter in this hissy-fit, this is pretty futile. Stalemate is a draw, and it will be a draw for centuries to come.
Yes you are right, those rules are slightly contradictory "special cases", "exceptions". Again I have no problem with these, because they are so slightly contradictory.
The stalemate rule though is on a whole other level of contradiction. It turns the game on its head!
ie
You have to move even if its to your "suicide" OR run out your clock and die by the clock! (in other words moving is all important)
AND then to turn around and say....
"You cant move now?..." "Oh, dont worry thats fine, you 2 are now equal" (in other words: moving isnt so important after all... you can pass it, now that you have nothing left and are powerless to move)
These two things contradict each other on a whole different level than .... a pawn can move 2 squares for 1st move... and then only 1.
So is stalemate! There is little difference when it comes to how contradictory they are. The point is all of them are EXCEPTIONS to rules.
this is akin to saying:
If i steal a biscuit from a kitchen in a bank.... its the same level of "contradicting" the law as if I had stolen all their money and blown it up.
There are different levels of contradiction.
There are, but I don't see how those rules are different levels. All of them are exceptions to rules. Your argument here can easily be copied about en passant. An anti-en passant could say, "Pieces can usually only be captured on their sqaures, so why make an exception!?". That is basically what you are saying.
Aug 28, 2011
0
#560
en passant and the pawns two-square move are connected in terms of compensation. The french made both rules up, I believe. No real contradiction there at all, as it's all in the compensation (one rule changes, another rule is applied in order to balance out the otherwise obvious disadvantage this could produce).
As far as the "You cant move now?..." "Oh, dont worry thats fine, you 2 are now equal" rant goes; no, not really. What it translates into is "oops, it seems you made some sort of miscalculation in a winning position and now you are punished for this blunder" which is quite in sync with the nature of the game.
If you steal a biscuit from the kitchen in a bank, it is punished differently than if you had blown up the bank and run off with the money. This parrallel is not at all valid in terms of solid argumentation.
Well they are...
rule 1)you must move under all circumstances... OR resign OR let your clock run out.
rule 2)you cant move... ok no worries its a draw.
Don't be silly, that's not a contradiction. If you have a rule saying that players must make one of their possible legal moves, then you must also have a rule that says what happens if there are no legal moves. The rule says that the result depends on whether you are currently in check or not - you lose if you are, draw if you're not.
You may not like it, but there is absolutely no logical contradiction there. Please stop repeating this silly argument.
It is a contradiction ... pls re-read my #604
Rule 1 already covers all cases (including stalemate)... rule 2 is in direct contrast to rule 1