Forums

Stalemate should = WIN

Sort:
Avatar of IMKetogenic
IMKetogenic
May 2, 2023
0
#41
magipi wrote:
FaithKetoCoffee wrote:

"I didn't even know this rule existed when I first started playing and it's making it hard for me to continue learning and playing."

Youre using this as an excuse to not learn and grow. If you cannot win a won position, then your opponent deserves the draw. The problem is you. Not your opponent or a rule.

But learning is very hard. Learning how to checkmate with a queen would take at least 10 minutes. It is much easier and faster to google and post some nonsense "chess memes".

Welcome to the forums!

Avatar of RamBakhi
RamBakhi
May 2, 2023
0
#42
Shlttens wrote:

The idea of a draw, with draw basically meaning both sides are equal. Is simply wrong with simple logic. I don't care if... If you played well enough to trap the enemy king and he cannot move anymore without being checked, well then how else can that be anything but a win?

I don't get the concept that you play the game a certain way, with the entire concept of the game being a war game between two equal sides, and the side with the best material advantage + tactics = win. ...

Just plain stupid.

At best for a compromise. If a king cannot move into check because it would be an illegal move, than too, it should be an illegal move that makes the game a stalemate.

First of all, your suggestion is completely logical and acceptable. The only problem is you cannot compel chess.com to change their ruleset based on your personal preference. Maybe--as you mentioned earlier--a separate ELO rating system would be an idea.

Secondly, using this logic, that if one side is winning in material, the game should be a win for them (as in a real war), then, in the case where White is crushing in material/position etc., but blunders back-rank mate, should it still be considered a loss? To be fair, White completely outplayed his opponent, but still, there is still a queen, rooks and many other pieces to avenge the back-rank-mated king. It just doesn't make too much sense to say that a player is winning/losing based on their material advantage/disadvantage.

Also, there a many times that the player with more material gets stalemated. Other rulesets use different outcomes if one player can't make any legal moves (as mentioned above), but the one chess.com uses is very standard and accepted by many. You still have every right to express your opinion, though.

Avatar of Furballzzzz
Furballzzzz
May 2, 2023
0
#43
RamBakhi wrote:
Shlttens wrote:

The idea of a draw, with draw basically meaning both sides are equal. Is simply wrong with simple logic. I don't care if... If you played well enough to trap the enemy king and he cannot move anymore without being checked, well then how else can that be anything but a win?

I don't get the concept that you play the game a certain way, with the entire concept of the game being a war game between two equal sides, and the side with the best material advantage + tactics = win. ...

Just plain stupid.

At best for a compromise. If a king cannot move into check because it would be an illegal move, than too, it should be an illegal move that makes the game a stalemate.

First of all, your suggestion is completely logical and acceptable. The only problem is you cannot compel chess.com to change their ruleset based on your personal preference. Maybe--as you mentioned earlier--a separate ELO rating system would be an idea.

Secondly, using this logic, that if one side is winning in material, the game should be a win for them (as in a real war), then, in the case where White is crushing in material/position etc., but blunders back-rank mate, should it still be considered a loss? To be fair, White completely outplayed his opponent, but still, there is still a queen, rooks and many other pieces to avenge the back-rank-mated king. It just doesn't make too much sense to say that a player is winning/losing based on their material advantage/disadvantage.

Also, there a many times that the player with more material gets stalemated. Other rulesets use different outcomes if one player can't make any legal moves (as mentioned above), but the one chess.com uses is very standard and accepted by many. You still have every right to express your opinion, though.

Material advantage is just the means to the end. A tactically superior player can easily win against an overwhelmingly material advantaged opponent.

I know my posts most likely won't change anything, but I am expressing myself irrespective. IF everyone who wanted to rule change kept quiet because "nothing will change", well then for sure nothing will change... You miss all the shots you don't take after all.

Avatar of MattDIV
MattDIV
May 2, 2023
0
#44
A Stalemate is not a win, plain and simple. If you don’t know how to checkmate someone you need to work on your endgame skills. If anything a stalemate is more of a win from the weaker side than the stronger given the stronger side bungled the mate.
Avatar of Habanababananero
Habanababananero
May 2, 2023
0
#45
Shlttens kirjoitti:
RamBakhi wrote:
Shlttens wrote:

The idea of a draw, with draw basically meaning both sides are equal. Is simply wrong with simple logic. I don't care if... If you played well enough to trap the enemy king and he cannot move anymore without being checked, well then how else can that be anything but a win?

I don't get the concept that you play the game a certain way, with the entire concept of the game being a war game between two equal sides, and the side with the best material advantage + tactics = win. ...

Just plain stupid.

At best for a compromise. If a king cannot move into check because it would be an illegal move, than too, it should be an illegal move that makes the game a stalemate.

First of all, your suggestion is completely logical and acceptable. The only problem is you cannot compel chess.com to change their ruleset based on your personal preference. Maybe--as you mentioned earlier--a separate ELO rating system would be an idea.

Secondly, using this logic, that if one side is winning in material, the game should be a win for them (as in a real war), then, in the case where White is crushing in material/position etc., but blunders back-rank mate, should it still be considered a loss? To be fair, White completely outplayed his opponent, but still, there is still a queen, rooks and many other pieces to avenge the back-rank-mated king. It just doesn't make too much sense to say that a player is winning/losing based on their material advantage/disadvantage.

Also, there a many times that the player with more material gets stalemated. Other rulesets use different outcomes if one player can't make any legal moves (as mentioned above), but the one chess.com uses is very standard and accepted by many. You still have every right to express your opinion, though.

Material advantage is just the means to the end. A tactically superior player can easily win against an overwhelmingly material advantaged opponent.

I know my posts most likely won't change anything, but I am expressing myself irrespective. IF everyone who wanted to rule change kept quiet because "nothing will change", well then for sure nothing will change... You miss all the shots you don't take after all.

A tactically superior player should easily be able to avoid stalemating their opponent with a huge material advantage also...

Avatar of BlueScreenRevenge
BlueScreenRevenge
May 3, 2023
0
#46

You are not the first one to complain about stalemate being a draw. It's not gonna change. You are wasting your time here.

Avatar of long_quach
long_quach
May 3, 2023
0
#47
Optimissed wrote:
long_quach wrote:

Stalemate is a win in Chinese Chess, the other descendant of Chaturanga.

There's no reason it shouldn't be a loss in Chinese Chess. I believe that makes FAR more sense than giving the dominant player even more chance to win.

A win for one side is a loss to the other side, duh.

The side that wins is the side that can capture the king on the forced next move.

Avatar of Chessflyfisher
Chessflyfisher
May 3, 2023
0
#48
Shlttens wrote:

Stalemate becoming a draw needs to be removed. It's a cheap gimmick that only allows inferior players to deus ex machina what would of otherwise been a loss from a superior player, into another boring draw.... I didn't even know this rule existed when I first started playing and it's making it hard for me to continue learning and playing.

The endgame is always extremely irritating because of this. I know some people are going to say "get good, learn the rules, this is a beginner problem only".

Yeah well. I can choose to TOLERATE this terrible rule, or quit, but it shouldn't be like that. Give players the choice on what ruleset they want to play....

You should remove yourself! If you can't abide by the rules, form your own club.

Avatar of long_quach
long_quach
May 3, 2023
0
#49
BlueScreenRevenge wrote:

You are not the first one to complain about stalemate being a draw. It's not gonna change. You are wasting your time here.

He's not the first.

It did change. In the other lineage of Chaturanga.

Yes, he is wasting his time here. He can play Chinese Chess.

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
May 3, 2023
0
#50
long_quach wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
long_quach wrote:

Stalemate is a win in Chinese Chess, the other descendant of Chaturanga.

There's no reason it shouldn't be a loss in Chinese Chess. I believe that makes FAR more sense than giving the dominant player even more chance to win.

A win for one side is a loss to the other side, duh.

The side that wins is the side that can capture the king on the forced next move.

No, because moving is impossible. Therefore the loser should be the side who was careless enough to give their opponent no moves.
:
duh.

Avatar of Snarkfish
Snarkfish
May 3, 2023
0
#51
Shlttens wrote:

Well this does violate the rules as you can't have this number of queens in a battle, in regular chess game there are 8 pawns.. You have developed 6 pawns and kept 8 others? how?

Avatar of Snarkfish
Snarkfish
May 3, 2023
0
#52
MattDIV wrote:
A Stalemate is not a win, plain and simple. If you don’t know how to checkmate someone you need to work on your endgame skills. If anything a stalemate is more of a win from the weaker side than the stronger given the stronger side bungled the mate.

In real this is not a beautiful part of chess, where saving and memorizing is more required than strategies. Especially while most end games comes at a lack of remaining time so you barely can take care of your pieces than caring about your enemy's available moves!!!

Avatar of madcapsyd42
madcapsyd42
May 3, 2023
0
#53

A win for which player?

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
May 3, 2023
0
#54
madcapsyd42 wrote:

A win for which player?

For the one who can't move any pieces, obviously. Really careless for the other side to allow it so he should lose and the one who can't move wins.

Avatar of Burdbraine
Burdbraine
May 3, 2023
0
#55
Stalemate honestly changes the whole game to make it so that even if then opponent is winning you can still try to fight back also it’s funny
Avatar of Furballzzzz
Furballzzzz
May 3, 2023
0
#56
Burdbraine wrote:
Stalemate honestly changes the whole game to make it so that even if then opponent is winning you can still try to fight back also it’s funny

I have a dream. That one day every person in Chess will control their own destiny. A game for the truly free, dammit. A game of action, not stale rules, ruled by strength, not stalemates!

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
May 4, 2023
0
#57
Shlttens wrote:
Burdbraine wrote:
Stalemate honestly changes the whole game to make it so that even if then opponent is winning you can still try to fight back also it’s funny

I have a dream. That one day every person in Chess will control their own destiny. A game for the truly free, dammit. A game of action, not stale rules, ruled by strength, not stalemates!

Stalemate makes the game much better. After all I would say that if stalemate isn't a draw and has to be a win, there's no way it should be a win for the side who is the opponent of the one who can't move. That would be completely illogical, since his opponent can't move and he has caused it; and yet if his opponent can't move, then the game has to end. So if it must be a win for someone, it has to be a win for the one who can't move. That's the only logical outcome and since a lot of people, who don't know any better and can't think straight, will disagree with this logical outcome, a draw is the best way to save their embarrassment.

Avatar of the_random_guy8117
the_random_guy8117
May 4, 2023
0
#58

(before reading this, check Shlttens second meme in the first page 13th comment. my potato computer cant put the image) bruv where is white's king. black won there. second of all if you have 7 queens (hopefully one of them was at the begging) 8 pawns (one of them should be promoted because it is in the 8th rank 4 rooks and 4 knights. to get all of that you would need to promote 10 pawns. then even if it was legally allowed to have all of those pieces in the chess board, it would be checkmate by three moves ago

Avatar of Jenium
Jenium
May 4, 2023
0
#59
Shlttens wrote:

Stalemate becoming a draw needs to be removed. It's a cheap gimmick that only allows inferior players to deus ex machina what would of otherwise been a loss from a superior player, into another boring draw.... I didn't even know this rule existed when I first started playing and it's making it hard for me to continue learning and playing.

The endgame is always extremely irritating because of this. I know some people are going to say "get good, learn the rules, this is a beginner problem only".

Yeah well. I can choose to TOLERATE this terrible rule, or quit, but it shouldn't be like that. Give players the choice on what ruleset they want to play....

So you say your difficulties to mate with K+Q vs K outweigh centuries of chess history? Some people are right. If you learn more about the game, you'll get to understand that removing the stalemate will not just remove a gimmick, but also change the entire game.

Avatar of the_random_guy8117
the_random_guy8117
May 4, 2023
0
#60

and no it is stupid because the person who was losing was just lucky that the other side blundered a stalemate and after all, chess is no luck game