Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!
Sort:
Aug 19, 2011
0
#162
In the conversation about incentivizing wins, I don't think that changing stalemate makes the top 10. It's all about soccer scoring these days, or Armageddon games. Maybe blindfold or rapid. But not a 3/4 stalemate rule. Then again, anything is worthy a try, right? Put up enough money and you could even get the super GMs to play a traxler thematic.
blake78613 wrote:
In the 2011 Candidate's Tournament there were 27 draws out of 30 games. If that happened in the World Cup you would see some rule changes in soccer.
There are already some rule changes in some tournaments in order to avoid so many draws. One is Sofia Rules - agreed draws prohibited. Another is scoring system like 0 for loss, 1 for draw and 3 for win. However those changes don't modify the essence of game.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
In the conversation about incentivizing wins, I don't think that changing stalemate makes the top 10. It's all about soccer scoring these days, or Armageddon games. Maybe blindfold or rapid. But not a 3/4 stalemate rule. Then again, anything is worthy a try, right? Put up enough money and you could even get the super GMs to play a traxler thematic.
I know you are being sarcastic, but 3/4 point for a stalemate seems like an idea for serious consideration. It would be similar to wrestling meet where you get so many points for a pin and less points for winning a decision.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Thread summary: people, including and especially the OP, will do anything to avoid studying.
This is one of the smartest comments in here.
blake78613 wrote:
I know you are being sarcastic, but 3/4 point for a stalemate seems like an idea for serious consideration. It would be similar to wrestling meet where you get so many points for a pin and less points for winning a decision.
That means the game can have 5 different results instead of 3. "How was your tournament?" - " Well I had 2 wins, stalemated 1 game, 4 draws, was stalemated in 2, and lost 1"
uri65 wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
I know you are being sarcastic, but 3/4 point for a stalemate seems like an idea for serious consideration. It would be similar to wrestling meet where you get so many points for a pin and less points for winning a decision.
That means the game can have 5 different results instead of 3. "How was your tournament?" - " Well I had 2 wins, stalemated 1 game, 4 draws, was stalemated in 2, and lost 1"
Sounds better than, "How was your tounament?" " Same as yours, no wins, no losses and 10 draws."
Aug 19, 2011
0
#168
The stalemate just gives even more awesome sides of chess, because of all the amazing tactics there is with it.
I hate that knights move in an L-shaped pattern. We need to change the rule so that they move in a V- or S- shaped pattern. And anyone who disagrees with me isn't thinking logically.
If you're referring to me, I'm just being sarcastic. I actually think it would be better if knights moved in an R-shape.
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7469
check out the 1st user comment below the articles
Looks like there are more and more of us
Aug 20, 2011
0
#173
The rules seem to be fine and they have worked for years.... so why change them...
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7469
check out the 1st user comment below the articles
Looks like there are more and more of us
Same nonsense argumentation comparing chess to war... Why don't you just team up with that guy and play by your rules... and leave us alone to play the game we all love...
uri65 wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7469
check out the 1st user comment below the articles
Looks like there are more and more of us
Same nonsense argumentation comparing chess to war... Why don't you just team up with that guy and play by your rules... and leave us alone to play the game we all love...
Of course chess is a war.
Its a fight between 2 people for material, space, and to beat the other person.
Is the iraq war not a war because it doesnt resemble the crusades?
A war is simply a fight between 2 parties to win something, so chess is a war.
You ask me to leave you alone.... who the hell is forcing you to read my thread?
If you dont like the discussion dont read it and get lost!
Am i not allowed to raise ideas because it offends you ?
The truth is people like you are threatened for some reason by these ideas...
If your not threatened by it you would simply ignore it.
That idiot NM ozzie accuses me of not wanting to study and thats why i want to change the rules... Can this guy read ? Can he put 2+2 together ? I mentioned that I read "my system" by nimzo ... why would I do that if I dont like studying chess?
I have a problem with the contradictory inelegant nature of the obfuscated rules... whats that got to do with study?
xwon3 wrote:
The rules seem to be fine and they have worked for years.... so why change them...
Cooking with fire in a cave also worked well... why change it ?
hey Monster, sure you got mad before stalemate your opponent in a game you had won and that turned it in a draw, but an angry chess player is not enough reason to abolish a rule. otherwise, all chess rules must be abolished and we decide chess games punching & kicking the opponent. so, take it easy and pay attention in endgames to avoid stalemate when you are winning and please dont cry anymore.
a beautiful part of the game. chess like life is rich in resources. i have been frustrated myself by stalemates but would never suggest getting rid of the stalemate rule. regard every move by your opponent with respect and you wont go far wrong like nestorcarlos suggests take care in the endgame!!! little tip if you want to improve study endgame tactics this is where you will learn most hope this helps :)
In the 2011 Candidate's Tournament there were 27 draws out of 30 games. If that happened in the World Cup you would see some rule changes in soccer.
http://www.chess.com/news/candidates-matches-scrapped-9113