In checkers/draughts the stalemated player loses. I wonder if any of it's practitioners complain about that and prefer a stalemate to be a draw ? Perhaps the OP should play checkers/draughts instead of chess ?
Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!
Sort:
Aron Nimzowitsch also felt that a stalemate should be a win, so maybe we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea as stupid. Nimzowitsch's thinking was that requiring a checkmate to win was like saying you have to win a race by at least 2 seconds or its a tie. The original rule was that a stalemate was a win (this back when the pieces were much less powerful).
Aug 18, 2011
0
#85
I deleted my last post sincce I thought of a better way to address ozzy's last post.
You contend that I did not examine how the rule change would affect the game. My point would be that from my point of view, I did.
The whole point of my previous post was that the two sides view and define the game of chess differently. "Rules determine spirit" folks see the game of chess as basically a set of governing rules. Everything that you can do in chess is subject to and allowed by rules; those that are best at chess are the ones that best understand the complexities that those rules have to offer.
"Spirit determines rules" folks see the game of chess as completely different: the game of chess is a game of war, of conquest, of battle. Sure, you have to play according to rules, but the game at its core is war.
So, when you said I did not examine how the rule change would affect the game, that's because we don't agree on what "the game" is.
Additionally, the point of that post was to explain that these are two mutually exclusive points of view with literally no common starting ground. They define the game in two completely different ways. I'm not trying to encourage debate; I'm explaining why the deabte is not possible.
Stale mates are something you must learn to avoid on the offensive, and utilize on the defensive.
The rule for a stalemate draw does not make sense compared to the main theme of the chess problem, i.e. to render the opponent’s king non-viable. I know, it is part of the strategy of the game blah blah blah, but up until the early 1800’s the stalemate rule was a loss to the side that was pinned. But the French rule on stalemate at the time had the pinned side draw with the dominate side and the rule was adopted internationally.
If in a real battle between 2 kingdoms, one kingdom’s military is completely destroyed ,except for the commander in chief who is pinned down with no means to escape, and the second kingdom has artillery pieces, infantry, and cavalry troops still available and active, does the dominate kingdom declare it cannot win and then just walks away? No, the pinned commander in chief surrenders or he is killed if he moves aggressively. Either way the kingdom is lost.
The same should apply to a king in a stalemate position. Based on the fact that the king cannot move without being checked he should lose on time. Technically the dominate side is waiting for the pinned side to move. So the dominate side just lets the clock run down waiting for this move and wins on time if the surrounded side does not surrender, i.e. resigns.
I can only see the stalemate rule appease traditionalist by making the stalemate rule an option agreed to by both players before starting a game. But if your opponent kicks you to the corner you are a loser.
N2UHC wrote:
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.
A foul ball into the stands equals a home run? Have you seen how many foul balls get hit into the stands without even trying? If they played that way you might as well change the name of the game to foul ball-hitting-contest.
The extra point in football gives the game extra strategy with having to decide whether to go for one point or two.
The probability of drawing a straight is .392% which is about double the probability of a flush at .197%, so, logically a flush beats a straight. Having the dealer lose a draw in blackjack is a good idea, but casinos would rather make money than lose money, so they'll never go for it.
And as for the stalemate rule, it exists so that smart players can trick their opponents into a draw when they're behind and to make winning the game more of a challenge.
No one here gets the point! If the stale mated side can't move why do they get a draw?
Matthew11 wrote:
No one here gets the point! If the stale mated side can't move why do they get a draw?
Because the side who was stalemated doesn't deserve the win
Aug 18, 2011
0
#91
NKT73 wrote:
if between two kingdoms the winning king has all his pieces left and the losing king is alone. the winning king can choose to treat the losing king with kindness and compasion knowing that he is alone all the rest of his days.
Eliminating the stalemate does not eliminate the ability to agree to a draw.
Roper300 wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
Aron Nimzowitsch also felt that a stalemate should be a win, so maybe we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea as stupid. Nimzowitsch's thinking was that requiring a checkmate to win was like saying you have to win a race by at least 2 seconds or its a tie. The original rule was that a stalemate was a win (this back when the pieces were much less powerful).
You use a sports example but you forget that in many games one point is not enough to win the set (volley , tennis, ping-pong,etc.).In tennis winning by one set gives you the win but every game and every set is considered won if the player takes 2 points lead.You can find examples for both sides if you want.
Your counter examples don't work since there are no draws in volley ball, tennis, or ping-pong. But more important they miss the point. To win a game a chess, you have to be about a rook ahead in material. That would be more like having to a win a set of tennis by 5 games instead of 2 games and declaring the set a draw if it wasn't done in 15 games.
brilliantboy wrote:
Matthew11 wrote:
No one here gets the point! If the stale mated side can't move why do they get a draw?
Because the side who was stalemated doesn't deserve the win
Stupid jokes do more harm than good.
Matthew11 wrote:
brilliantboy wrote:
Matthew11 wrote:
No one here gets the point! If the stale mated side can't move why do they get a draw?
Because the side who was stalemated doesn't deserve the win
Stupid jokes do more harm than good.
What's stupid about it? Here's one way to look at it:
Getting stalemated means one of two things a) you weren't paying attention and blinded by your superior material advantage, waltzed into a stalemate or b) the opponent caught you in a fiendishly clever stalemate trap.
In case A, you don't deserve the win. In case B, your opponent deserves the draw.
Aug 18, 2011
0
#95
brilliantboy wrote:
Matthew11 wrote:
brilliantboy wrote:
Matthew11 wrote:
No one here gets the point! If the stale mated side can't move why do they get a draw?
Because the side who was stalemated doesn't deserve the win
Stupid jokes do more harm than good.
What's stupid about it? Here's one way to look at it:
Getting stalemated means one of two things a) you weren't paying attention and blinded by your superior material advantage, waltzed into a stalemate or b) the opponent caught you in a fiendishly clever stalemate trap.
In case A, you don't deserve the win. In case B, your opponent deserves the draw.
My guess is he thought "the side who was stalemated" referred to the guy who was losing.
johnkorean wrote:
brilliantboy wrote:
Matthew11 wrote:
brilliantboy wrote:
Matthew11 wrote:
No one here gets the point! If the stale mated side can't move why do they get a draw?
Because the side who was stalemated doesn't deserve the win
Stupid jokes do more harm than good.
What's stupid about it? Here's one way to look at it:
Getting stalemated means one of two things a) you weren't paying attention and blinded by your superior material advantage, waltzed into a stalemate or b) the opponent caught you in a fiendishly clever stalemate trap.
In case A, you don't deserve the win. In case B, your opponent deserves the draw.
My guess is he thought "the side who was stalemated" referred to the guy who was losing.
ah, of course, now I see I've just confused the hell out of everyone 
heinzie wrote:
I agree, I have lost too many half points because of this dumb rule when I was up three queens.
lol
OP: Who are you to say what the goal is of the game? The goal is what the goal was made to be: checkmate. The goal of chess is not to capture the king, it's to checkmate the king. It's not to trap the king, it's to checkmate the king.
What happens here?
btw, the position is legal.
sadern wrote:
What happens here?
btw, the position is legal.
It seems to me that position is not legal (ie. can't be reached by any legal sequence of moves). The king had to get to a1 via b3-a2 or c2-b1. If the former, then the rook has to vacate to b1 making it impossible to get to a2. If the latter, then the rook has to vacate to a2, but once the a and c pawns are pushed the knight can't get back into b1
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.
All of this... but you still don't examine how it would affect the game.