The Wikipedia article has one incorrect statement on how the three- and four-piece endings would be affected if a stalemate is counted as a win: K+R vs K+B would still be a draw in the general case. This is confirmed by a tablebase analysis in which a programming change was made to count a stalemate as a win. The authors of the comment (GM Fine and GM Benko) probably assumed that the usual and easiest way to draw this ending, that being to run the king to a corner of the opposite corner of the bishop, is the only way to draw. The truth is, though, in most positions the defender can prevent his king from being forced to the corner and still draw. It'll be harder to hold the draw -- it won't be possible to just run to the "right corner" anymore -- but a draw will still be the result with correct play.
Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!
My latest and greatest... this was a fun game!
It should also be legal to "step into check" (in which case the opponent would capture the king on the next move and win)
It should also be legal to "step into check" (in which case the opponent would capture the king on the next move and win)
I was wondering about that myself. It makes sense that if you move your king into check, your opponent should be allowed to take it.
Except for the part where it's not a legal move....
the time argument is good. in real life if a king were in an impenetrable fortress but surrounded by an enemy army he would eventually die of old age.
the time argument is good. in real life if a king were in an impenetrable fortress but surrounded by an enemy army he would eventually die of old age.
...and so would everyone else. In fact, camped outside a fortress, the opposing army would probably all catch cholera before the King popped his clogs in comfort.
Except for the part where it's not a legal move....
We were wondering why not.
Except for the part where it's not a legal move....
We were wondering why not.
Why can pawns only capture diagonally? Why can the King only move one square while the the Queen is unlimited in scope? What real-life analogue underpins the concept of castling?
I always thought that castling was akin to the King hiding in his castle during the heat of battle.
Except for the part where it's not a legal move....
We were wondering why not.
Why can pawns only capture diagonally? Why can the King only move one square while the the Queen is unlimited in scope? What real-life analogue underpins the concept of castling?
I just thought it would make sense that it would be legal to move your king into check. But since your opponent can take it, and win the game, it would prevent it from happening anyway. Unless you blunder, of course.
I always thought that castling was akin to the King hiding in his castle during the heat of battle.
I think it's more like a secret service guy pushing the president down and putting himself between his charge and any danger. If that were the case, though, I'd expect you'd have to pick the rook up first to castle....
It should also be legal to "step into check" (in which case the opponent would capture the king on the next move and win)
I was wondering about that myself. It makes sense that if you move your king into check, your opponent should be allowed to take it.
Unless my family and I have been playing the game wrong our whole life (and my extendeed family does livein China), you cannot move your king into check.
Also, a bigger problem is that, despite any argument, changing the stalemate rule would uproot much of endgame theory (as previously noted) and probably flucuate the ratings of thousands (or more) players. The rule is simply too firmly rooted to be changed.
It should also be legal to "step into check" (in which case the opponent would capture the king on the next move and win)
I was wondering about that myself. It makes sense that if you move your king into check, your opponent should be allowed to take it.
Unless my family and I have been playing the game wrong our whole life (and my extendeed family does livein China), you cannot move your king into check.
Also, a bigger problem is that, despite any argument, changing the stalemate rule would uproot much of endgame theory (as previously noted) and probably flucuate the ratings of thousands (or more) players. The rule is simply too firmly rooted to be changed.
My God man! Doesn't the posts make it clear we're aware of it being illegal to move your king into check?
This is the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.
People who stalemate their opponent when they are much stronger in position don't deserve the win.
People who find ways to draw the game by stalemate deserve the draw.
Stalemate puzzles are also very cool.
Please do not let idiots change the rules of chess.
People who suggest this idea are probably not very skilled in chess anyway.
It should also be legal to "step into check" (in which case the opponent would capture the king on the next move and win)
I was wondering about that myself. It makes sense that if you move your king into check, your opponent should be allowed to take it.
Unless my family and I have been playing the game wrong our whole life (and my extendeed family does livein China), you cannot move your king into check.
Also, a bigger problem is that, despite any argument, changing the stalemate rule would uproot much of endgame theory (as previously noted) and probably flucuate the ratings of thousands (or more) players. The rule is simply too firmly rooted to be changed.
My God man! Doesn't the posts make it clear we're aware of it being illegal to move your king into check?
B-. Needs more capital letters.
the time argument is good. in real life if a king were in an impenetrable fortress but surrounded by an enemy army he would eventually die of old age.
so would the surrounding army 
If you dont like stalemate just create another game with rules you like (perhaps you want 4 rooks and 6 pawns, or a 10x10 board) and leave chess as is. Stalemate rule is completely adequated and makes interesting endgames, and gives more work to your brains, so it is a perfect rule. Final stop. No further discussions about.
People who suggest this idea are probably not very skilled in chess anyway.
What is your authority for such a statement? The first person to suggest the change was Aaron Nimzowitsch and it is currently supported by Grandmaster Larry Kaufman. Your ridiculous ad hoc attack has lost you all credibility.
From the Wikipedia: a summary of how changing the stalemate rule would affect endgames.