the player was outplayed, and before the king is about to be captured they abruptly stop the game and call it a draw... this is ludicrousness. You cant "pass" your move this is also an "illegal move" in chess.
Funnily enough, if "pass" were allowed, it would not be possible to force checkmate with king and rook vs king.
I think I made some . Would you care to answer ?
OP: "The stalemate rule needs to be changed!"
Most other posters: "You cannot change the stalemate rule because the stalemate rule is a rule."
The whole point of the OP is that the author thinks the very concept of the stalemate rule is stupid and should be changed. The author believes that if you have cornered your opponent into a situation where every move he makes is suicide, you should be rewarded. Proponents of the stalemate rule are challenged to explain why the rule makes sense without invoking "because that's the rule."
The best argument I can come up with for the stalemate rule is that the goal of chess is not "to end the game by killing the opponent's King"; rather the goal of chess is "to end the game without having your own King killed in the process". It's a difference in the philosophical approach one takes to the game. If you belive the goal of chess is to protect your King, then the stalemate rule makes sense.
For the record, I agree with the author.
Like any good chess player, you should look ahead a little bit to see how it might affect the game.
What exactly is the rule you disagree with, how would you modify it to make it more palatable to your tastes, and most importantly, what would be the effects.
OP: "The stalemate rule needs to be changed!"
Most other posters: "You cannot change the stalemate rule because the stalemate rule is a rule."
The whole point of the OP is that the author thinks the very concept of the stalemate rule is stupid and should be changed. The author believes that if you have cornered your opponent into a situation where every move he makes is suicide, you should be rewarded. Proponents of the stalemate rule are challenged to explain why the rule makes sense without invoking "because that's the rule."
The best argument I can come up with for the stalemate rule is that the goal of chess is not "to end the game by killing the opponent's King"; rather the goal of chess is "to end the game without having your own King killed in the process". It's a difference in the philosophical approach one takes to the game. If you belive the goal of chess is to protect your King, then the stalemate rule makes sense.
I don't care about whatever symbolisms people might ascribe to chess pieces; it's just a game, and it's more interesting with stalemate, and if you want to make a chess variant that ignores the stalemate rule, go ahead, but don't expect chess.com to support it.
Like any good chess player, you should look ahead a little bit to see how it might affect the game.
What exactly is the rule you disagree with, how would you modify it to make it more palatable to your tastes, and most importantly, what would be the effects.
As a variation of this idea, I once proposed something similar to what the author is suggesting: abolish stalemate and checkmate and replace it wih a rule in which the game must end by actual capture of the King (or resignation or non-stalemate draws, like 50 move rep, agreed upon, etc.).
OP: "The stalemate rule needs to be changed!"
Most other posters: "You cannot change the stalemate rule because the stalemate rule is a rule."
The whole point of the OP is that the author thinks the very concept of the stalemate rule is stupid and should be changed. The author believes that if you have cornered your opponent into a situation where every move he makes is suicide, you should be rewarded. Proponents of the stalemate rule are challenged to explain why the rule makes sense without invoking "because that's the rule."
The best argument I can come up with for the stalemate rule is that the goal of chess is not "to end the game by killing the opponent's King"; rather the goal of chess is "to end the game without having your own King killed in the process". It's a difference in the philosophical approach one takes to the game. If you belive the goal of chess is to protect your King, then the stalemate rule makes sense.
For the record, I agree with the author.
Finally ! someone understands what im saying....
JohnKorean, thanks for taking the time to read and think about what i said.
Im saying it in very plain english... and 90% of the morons are still coming with "he must have drawn a game... he is angry"
Even that NM player just waltz-es in without reading any of my previous posts... and starts lecturing!
Seriously people........ read the previous posts ,
think
then type
Save your stupid comments about my motivations, past draws, etc and logically contribute to the discussion at hand.... seriously most of you reason/argue like 13 yr old girls.
I don't like foul balls in baseball so they need to change the rules to say that any ball hit anywhere is fair. If it gets knocked backwards into the stands, then that's just as good as a home run. I hate that you always run the bases counter-clockwise. I think they should switch the positions of first and third bases so you have to run the bases clockwise. And I don't like the extra point after a touchdown in football, so they need to change that rule as well. And I hate seeing ties in hockey, so they need to have overtime. They need to have four quarters instead of three periods.
I also don't like that a flush beats a straight, so that poker rule needs to be changed. And when both you and the dealer have the same number in blackjack, I don't like the idea of it being a push. They should change it so that the dealer loses.
In short, everyone should change the rules to suit me.
@ Monster_with_no_Name
We have taken the time to read all of your posts on this subject and here is our humble opinion: You don't like the stalemate rule then play the game with others who feel as you do. The rest of us don't have a problem with it and think THERE ARE BIGGER PROBLEMS facing humanity than the stalemate rule. Having said that We do enjoy your sniveling and look forward to more of your posts!!
I'm very disappointed with the quality of this forum.
The OP makes a perfectly stupid point and not one face-palm is proffered, by way of answer.
Just not good enough.
I don't like foul balls in baseball so they need to change the rules to say that any ball hit anywhere is fair. If it gets knocked backwards into the stands, then that's just as good as a home run. I hate that you always run the bases counter-clockwise. I think they should switch the positions of first and third bases so you have to run the bases clockwise. And I don't like the extra point after a touchdown in football, so they need to change that rule as well. And I hate seeing ties in hockey, so they need to have overtime. They need to have four quarters instead of three periods.
I also don't like that a flush beats a straight, so that poker rule needs to be changed. And when both you and the dealer have the same number in blackjack, I don't like the idea of it being a push. They should change it so that the dealer loses.
In short, everyone should change the rules to suit me.
If you don't like foul balls, watch cricket.
If you want a straight to beat a flush, play 3 card poker.
Indeed. Any serious discussion about a rule change has to look at what the effects would be if said change were to happen.
For example, if I had to pick a rule to abolish in chess, it would be that you can't castle through check. Seems like it just doesn't happen too often. But something like making stalemate a win - this has far-reaching consequences. And you can't just be like "hey player A outplayed player B, the stalemate rule doesn't make sense, it should just be a win".
That's like a 1000-level analysis of a position. And I think that the 1574-rated OP can do better.
If you eliminate stalemate, you might as well eliminate zugzwang. I think the game is better with both as possibilities. They are just two of the many nuances the game has. You might as welll eliminate en passant as well. Or you could just play checkers. Wait, checkers has zugzwang in it too. Oh, well.
To be fair, the OP is only advocating change of the stalemate rule, not of any other rule. He doesn't go through an exhaustive list of all the rules to determine which should be kept and which shouldn't. Meh - that's a lot of work. My problem is that he doesn't really take a critical view of the problem at all.
You want to do away with a key rule of chess. And you want people to completely ignore your reasoning for doing so. Any bias that affects an argument (especially an argument this dramatic in terms of chess) deserves to be questioned. Thus, it would be ridiculous for us not to question your motivations. Saying that we argue like 13 "yr" old girls and that we post "stupid comments" does not "logically contribute to the discussion at hand...", nor does it change the fact that your motivation is definitely a key part of this thread.
I personally do not have any problem with stalemates. Unless you're talking about master level play, stalemates and draws are fairly uncommon (at least as far as I've noticed, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). I have never run into a situation where a stalement was an issue, because I try to take the time to think when there are very few pieces left on the board. If my opponent plays well and forces a stalemate, then I would congratulate them for their accurate play and accept it. Accurate play turning a lesser position into a draw requires sound knowledge of the game and composed play even though you appear to be down. If I blow a game due to a stalemate, it's my fault, not the fault of the rule. Inaccurate play turning a win into a stalemate requires more practice on your end to fix your mistakes, not changing the rules to make it easier for you. By doing away with stalemates, I fear that endgames would require much less thought and consideration and would not be very fun to play. Chess is a thinking game, not a game of brute force.
While I do disagree with the way the author has dealt with some of the criticism sent his way, I also feel that he has more or less articulated his reason for why he wants the stalemate rule to be abolished (and it goes beyond "because I drew a game I should have won").
As I understand it (or maybe I'm projecting my reasoning onto him), stalemate should be abolished not because it's frustrating when my opponent draws when I have 3 Queens on the board, but because the rule is inconsistent with the spirit of Chess. The purpose of the game, the reasoning goes, is to vanquish your opponent: if I have put him in a situation where escape from my forces is impossible, he should be vanquished. Instead, the rules of Chess are such that if escape is impossible, you have secured a draw.
This is why I responded to him that there may simply be a philosophical difference in opinion. If the object of Chess is viewed to be the safety of your King, rather than the vanquishing of your opponent, then stalemate fits right in with that philosophy.
To expound a bit on the idea, I would suggest most people would say a draw indicates equality. To anti-stalematers, the idea that stalemate indicates equality is ludicrous: we are not equal if the only thing left for your King to do is commit suicide. To pro-stalematers, the idea that stalemate indicates equality makes perfect sense: two players playing under the same rules (one of which is the stalemate rule) achieved a result which according to the rules is a draw, so of course they are equal.
The two camps seem to be divided along the following line: either the spirit of the game should determine the rules, or the rules of the game should determine the spirit. It's two completely different points of view.
I think stalemate should be changed as well.
Everyone is generalizing here, it's not about wanting the rule to change "just because". It's illogical.
About the king not being able to move into check, that's part of chess, and stalemate means one side can't move. I understand that, and I don't think in stale mate the stalemated side should move their king into check. But the rules say you must move, and in stalemate you can't move. So, why say, "I can't do what I must do so that means it must be a draw."?
In my opinion, the stalemated side should lose without moving their king into check, just as checkmate.
There is no logical argument for this rule, like there is none for any other rule. Existing rules have no internal contradictions - and that's enough. If you think the goal of chess is to capture the opponent's king - you misunderstood the rules, if you think it's the spirit of chess - you misunderstood it either.
Take it as something abstract - there are some positions that are called "checkmates" which are wins, and there are "stalemate" positions which are draws. That's simple. Just "outplaying" your opponent doesn't make it a win, only checkmate does.
I like the game the way it is. Millions like it the way it is. I don't think we have to justify why we like it as it is.
There is no logical argument for this rule, like there is none for any other rule. Existing rules have no internal contradictions - and that's enough. If you think the goal of chess is to capture the opponent's king - you misunderstood the rules, if you think it's the spirit of chess - you misunderstood it either.
Take it as something abstract - there are some positions that are called "checkmates" which are wins, and there are "stalemate" positions which are draws. That's simple. Just "outplaying" your opponent doesn't make it a win, only checkmate does.
I like the game the way it is. Millions like it the way it is. I don't think we have to justify why we like it as it is.
+1
When I read "Stalemate rule needs to be abolished", I translate it to "someone is really peeved that they just gave up a stalemate."
In other words, someone needs more practice.
Exactly. When I blow a won game (who hasn't been there and done that?), I don't sit around and formulate rule changes to fit my needs. I figure out what exactly I did wrong and fix it through practice.