heinzie wrote:
Let's agree that the position is legal
Let's. But let's also agree that neither player deserves the win for playing with such utter stupidity 
Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!
Sort:
heinzie wrote:
Let's agree that the position is legal
Yes...
Here white should lose!
He is dominated, and cant fulfil the "you must move" rule
It's been said, that the closest to a perfect game of chess would be a Draw.
ok ... I realise I shouldnt argue with logic with ppl who dont think with logic.
Most of the pro-stalematers are just saying "its not logical, its just the rules"
so they are admitting they are not even thinking about what im saying.
[I *love* people like the one who made this comment:
"Stale mates are something you must learn to avoid on the offensive, and utilize on the defensive."
How the hell is this contributing to the discussion ??
why not just make other statements like "the sky is blue, and pasta should be boiled"]
Ok so "appeal to authority" might be a better way to argue with such people...
Or at least get them THINKING about whats being discussed
(rather than how it will effect THEIR endgame preparation, which it wont really anyway,
you geese... your prep will stay the same ONLY the RESULT will be different at the end
of the game! The techniques will still be the same. yes it will change middle game evals
etc... but only for a more logical direction! People are always struck by the *BEAUTY* of
a stalemate.... the "BEAUTY" lies in the fact that it was UNEXPECTED, which implies it was
probably TOTALLY ILLOGICAL to expect (theres a hint for you right there!))
So far we have (Capablanca, Reti, Lasker and many of their contemporaries, many modern GMs)
on my side.... AND Nimzowitsch ! that giant of logic (if youve
ever read his "my system" you know this guys talent and genius, he shaped modern chess)
This was posted earlier by one of the more "free minded" individuals...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#Proposed_rule_change
BTW... from that site... look how the pro-stalematers argue! teee heee heee
They dont address the arguement... they just
1) *attack the person proposing the change*
2) *make irrelevant arguements like it will make chess BORING!*
Fred Reinfeld wrote, "When Tylor wrote his attack on the stalemate rule, he released about his unhappy head a swarm of peevish maledictions that are still buzzing." (Reinfeld 1959:242) Larry Evans calls the proposal to make stalemate a win for the stalemating player a "crude proposal that ... would radically alter centuries of tradition and make chess boring" (Evans 2007:234).
Who cares about centuries of tradition!?
We evolve and improve things, we dont stay still!
We used to cook with fire... why did we ABANDON CENTURIES OF TRADITION ??
I call trolling.
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
Elubas wrote:
I call trolling.
I agree ... would you stop it!
To trolls like Elubas I would say:
read the previous posts, and contribute if you have something clever to say , otherwise stay out of it
xD
Look dude, it's one thing to have a weird opinion, but quite another to expect everyone else to accept it, and calling them "dullards" and yourself "free minded" doesn't help.
oinquarki wrote:
Look dude, it's one thing to have a weird opinion, but quite another to expect everyone else to accept it, and calling them "dullards" and yourself "free minded" doesn't help.
What he said.
I'll simplify this, also. If you are in a position to block your opponent from moving entirely (stalemate scenario), checkmate shouldn't be that difficult to achieve from that point. If you can't manage to mate your opponent from there, you don't deserve to win. Naturally, your opponent, being behind, doesn't deserve to win either. Conclusively, it's a draw.
oinquarki wrote:
Look dude, it's one thing to have a weird opinion, but quite another to expect everyone else to accept it, and calling them "dullards" and yourself "free minded" doesn't help.
ye dude, ye G, ye dawg....
tell me where im wrong...
Yes im adding a bit of spice to my posts... but your not adding any logic or arguements to yours. Stay out of it, unless you will...
You can pepper your posts with personal attacks on me if you show your logical arguement...
lone_wolf37 wrote:
I'll simplify this, also. If you are in a position to block your opponent from moving entirely (stalemate scenario), checkmate shouldn't be that difficult to achieve from that point. If you can't manage to mate your opponent from there, you don't deserve to win. Naturally, your opponent, being behind, doesn't deserve to win either. Conclusively, it's a draw.
check out the chessbase article i posted in the 1st couple of pages....... then get back to me once youve digested that....
I'm not against your variation of chess; you have a right to play it, and for me to get in the way would be ridiculous, no matter how retarded I think it is. What I am against is trying to convince people that your game is better than theirs - this is pointless because it's just a game. You play your game and I'll play mine, and we'll both be happy. I really don't see that the problem is.
lone_wolf37 wrote:
I'll simplify this, also. If you are in a position to block your opponent from moving entirely (stalemate scenario), checkmate shouldn't be that difficult to achieve from that point. If you can't manage to mate your opponent from there, you don't deserve to win. Naturally, your opponent, being behind, doesn't deserve to win either. Conclusively, it's a draw.
This argument sums up most of how these pro-stalematers think...
They accept the answer first... then rationalize backward to justify the answer they alwready accepted
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
oinquarki wrote:
Look dude, it's one thing to have a weird opinion, but quite another to expect everyone else to accept it, and calling them "dullards" and yourself "free minded" doesn't help.
ye dude, ye G, ye dawg....
tell me where im wrong...
Yes im adding a bit of spice to my posts... but your not adding any logic or arguements to yours. Stay out of it, unless you will...
You can pepper your posts with personal attacks on me if you show your logical arguement...
I'll explain this as simply as I can. From a purely objective and theoretical standpoint, your idea makes sense. The issue arises when you put it into practice. To be blunt, abolishing stalemate would completely ruin the game of chess. An extra pawn would basically always be decisive. All technical play, pawn sacs for activity, and fortresses would be out the window. The game might even be solved as a victory for white if that was the rule. Again, from a logical standpoint it seems that stalemate is the ultimate zugzwang and that the stalemated player should lose. But if you think about what it would do to chess, you quickly realize that it's not viable.
your exagerrating...
but on the other hand ... why should the person with the pawn down be rewarded for 1) being and pawn down
2) (more imporantly) not being able to move!
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
lone_wolf37 wrote:
I'll simplify this, also. If you are in a position to block your opponent from moving entirely (stalemate scenario), checkmate shouldn't be that difficult to achieve from that point. If you can't manage to mate your opponent from there, you don't deserve to win. Naturally, your opponent, being behind, doesn't deserve to win either. Conclusively, it's a draw.
This argument sums up most of how these pro-stalematers think...
They accept the answer first... then rationalize backward to justify the answer they alwready accepted
The rules of chess don't need to be justified because that's what makes it chess. Chess without checkmate is not chess; in the same way chess without stalemate is not chess; chess without promotions is not chess.
Aug 18, 2011
0
#119
From that Wikipedia article, the interesting section is the part about the effect on endgame theory. I forgot about R vs B.
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
oinquarki wrote:
Look dude, it's one thing to have a weird opinion, but quite another to expect everyone else to accept it, and calling them "dullards" and yourself "free minded" doesn't help.
ye dude, ye G, ye dawg....
tell me where im wrong...
Yes im adding a bit of spice to my posts... but your not adding any logic or arguements to yours. Stay out of it, unless you will...
You can pepper your posts with personal attacks on me if you show your logical arguement...
I'll explain this as simply as I can. From a purely objective and theoretical standpoint, your idea makes sense. The issue arises when you put it into practice. To be blunt, abolishing stalemate would completely ruin the game of chess. An extra pawn would basically always be decisive. All technical play, pawn sacs for activity, and fortresses would be out the window. The game might even be solved as a victory for white if that was the rule. Again, from a logical standpoint it seems that stalemate is the ultimate zugzwang and that the stalemated player should lose. But if you think about what it would do to chess, you quickly realize that it's not viable.
your exagerrating...
but on the other hand ... why should the person with the pawn down be rewarded for 1) being and pawn down
2) (more imporantly) not being able to move!
how about being punished for having an advantage? Like in these positions:
Stalemate is not just some "cheap shot" to avoid defeat. It's one of the most interesting finesses in chess, and the whole endgame phase revolves around it as a theme in many cases. Getting rid of stalemate isn't "Making those people unable to steal a draw", it's playing an entirely different game.
We discussed this already in the previous posts! Using the same eg
The person who is about to CAPTURE THE KING has the advantage... not the player with more pawns
Let's agree that the position is legal