Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!
Sort:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
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
Again!
Please re-read this post till you understand it!
Most people are just making silly comments without reading any of the history of the posts.
I've read it. You've made every point numerous times. IMO, it still sucks.
Oh goodness!
With the two rules you gave,
1)On your turn, you must make a move
2)It is illegal to move into check
STALEMATE DOES NOT BREAK ONE OF THESE RULES!
They don't move into check, they don't "not move". They do neither, as the game is ended, and it is not their move when the game is over.
Another point. Chess is not WAR, it is a GAME. As ReasonableDoubt said, though stalemate doesn't really make sense, getting rid of it would ruin chess. Chess doesn't even resemble war that much past the fact that there are two sides, each with an army. The rules don't have to logically make sense to any layman, they have to make sense in a way that makes a good game. As chess has been around for centuries and is as popular as ever, I'd say the rules are pretty good. Stalemate does not make sense in the most important way, that it works well with the rules of the game.
The reason that the "whoever is a pawn down in the endgame loses" idea is bad is that though it would work fine when patzers just take free pieces and whoever is left with more wins, without having to worry about stalemating cause they promoted a third queen when they shouldnt have, at higher levels there is a little more subltety, and if you're down a pawn, it might be bacause you sacrificed it.
All of this has probably been said before, but I think its worth repeating.
apteryx wrote:
With the two rules you gave,
1)On your turn, you must make a move
2)It is illegal to move into check
STALEMATE DOES NOT BREAK ONE OF THESE RULES!
They don't move into check, they don't "not move". They do neither, as the game is ended, and it is not their move when the game is over.
Excellent explanation! I don't know why it's so difficult for Monster_with_no_Name to grasp the idea that after stalemate (just like after checkmate) the game is over - nobody has to move.
I agree that the rule is not satisfactory. I would not go and change it though because it still is a minor occurance and would change the chess as we know it and cause confusion.
If I were to change it, I would change it as follows. If a player can't make a move, he won't make a move. Game continues.
I think the basic misunderstanding here comes from the fact that Monster_with_no_Name is trying to say that without stalemate the rules become more logical. But this is plain wrong. It has nothing to do with logic. We can modify any of existing rules - it won't make them more or less logical. Pawns eating diagonally are not more or less logical than pawn eating the way they move. Any existing chess variant is not more or less logical.
What we can talk about is harmony. But then it's a question of personal taste. I think existing rules are in fine harmony with each other. Monster_with_no_Name doesn't think so. I am afraid this discussion makes little sense...
nice pic....
Here's another one. Should be legal because of underpromotion.
I 've got my own idea for "new" chess rules: we should abandon not only stalemate but a checkmate rule too. You win if you capture all opponents pieces. So if my king was captured it's not the end - i still might be the first to capture his king and all his pieces. My loyal pieces and pawns will fight their guerilla war even after the monarch is dead. Now this is what I call real chess :-)
most people have no idea what theyre talking about.
This would not drastically revolutionize endgames... not the technique... only some *results*, but not change technique.
pawn endings (which are effected by stalemate) are simple anyway... no loss there..
To the guy suggesting its "no ones turn" when its stalemate... i dont know what to say to such a person ??! What kind of rationalization is this ?? If we're playing and I just made a move... whos turn is it ? Answer: no ones, because i cant move without being mated.... nice.
Let me sell you some snake oil while we're talking.
It would make less draws, which is what chess needs.
Rules should not contradict each other and should be as simple as possible... thats the elegant solution. Exceptions to rules are usually inelegant...
the rule: illegal to move into check is the real problem... (this is what stalemate is) it causes many contractions.
ie to the "you have to move rule"
and also ... what happens over the board... when i move my king into check ? (touch move rule) do i lose on the spot (as should happen) or does the arbiter put the king back and i move again....
Players should be (and in stalemate should be FORCED to) move into check, and lose their kings. Its the simple solution.
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
When will the stupid stalemate rule be abolished?
The goal of chess is to capture! the king. If the opponent is in a zugzwang where his only move will lead to the capture of the king why on earth is that stalemate ? Its very strange. (even more strange is the top level players unquestioning of this rule!)
So one move before Im mated... my king has nowhere to move... why isnt that stalemate as well ?
The only reason the two kings have to always have at least one square between them, is if they didnt the other king would capture the other and the game is over.
Stalemate always occurs when the opponent is really dead in the water... why dont we have a stalemate rule then for zugzwangs as well?
This stalemate rule we have is very silly ... especially for clever chess players... it needs to be changed.
LOL, this is as silly as the title impllied! Thanks for the laughs!
Hey, for what's worth, I'll accept your rule of no stalemate if you accept mine that pawns only move backwards - but the game has to be unrated. Deal?
N2UHC wrote:
I love it when you have one person who doesn't like a particular long-standing chess rule so they think it needs to be abolished. Kind of like when someone on here a while back was saying that castling is cheating.
well said clearly the topic creator got stalemated and is whinging and wanting it aboilshed
This is a very silly idea imo as it would change chess too much. K+p v K endings that are book draws ( due to stalemate ) would change and be lost now for the stalemated side. It would also be possible for the side with the pawn to actually lose if they are stalemated which would violate another rule of chess : you cannot win if no legal series of moves can lead to checkmate.
Monster_with_no_Name, would you please stop that nonsense about logic and rationalization? Logic is irrelevant here. We all agreed to play by existing rules and we are happy about it. You want to create your own chess variant - go ahead. Make a web site, federation, championships - whatever you want. When you do so drop me a line - I might come and play a game or two by your rules.
I can explain my point another way...
The whole plan 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 its a draw!
stalemate is the ultimate mating net...
This is the contradiction im getting at. Stalemate always comes when you are just about to achieve your objective of putting a mating attack on a king.
Ive taught many people chess... they all laugh at the stalemate rule as illogical. Probably you did too when you first saw it...
Monster_with_no_Name, again you try to give your own (and wrong) interpretation of the rules and goals of chess. First you talked about capturing the king, now about attack on it. Go to FIDE site, read the rules: the goal is to checkmate. Period. Why is it so difficult to understand?
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
Again!
Please re-read this post till you understand it!
Most people are just making silly comments without reading any of the history of the posts.