Stalemate should = WIN

Sort:
Avatar of Habanababananero
the_random_guy8117 kirjoitti:

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

Stalemate is not luck, unless it happens by accident in a beginner vs. beginner game. And even then it is questionable whether it is luck or just that the player with the material advantage was such a weak player that they stalemated the opponent and did not deserve the win. One does not deserve to win at chess before they can perform a checkmate afterall.

There are endgames like the most basic K vs. K + pawn endgame where the weaker side has the opposition and can draw because of that. It is not luck and the weaker side does need to know what they are doing in order to be able to draw.

There are a lot more endgames like this, but I am not going to try to list them here.

Avatar of ThrillerFan
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....

No, the hard facts are only beginners whine about this. There is a true art to stalemate.

I actually had this position against a master over the board in March.

He played 1.f5??

This allowed 1...Rxc7!! and the game was drawn. He obviously did not take the Rook. He played 2.Rg8 Rc2 (threat of 3...Rxg2). I think he went 3.Kh3, but once he played g4, the King was stalemated again and I had what is known as the Eternal Rook Draw where I check the White King until he takes the Rook and stalemate.

In fact, I think the moves were 3.Kh3 Rf2 4.g4 Rf3+ 5.Kg2 Rg3+ 6.Kf2 Rf3+ and White then offered the draw seeing I just contine to check on the 3rd rank.

Stalemate is an art, not a cheap trick.

Avatar of the_random_guy8117
Habanababananero wrote:
the_random_guy8117 kirjoitti:

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

Stalemate is not luck, unless it happens by accident in a beginner vs. beginner game. And even then it is questionable whether it is luck or just that the player with the material advantage was such a weak player that they stalemated the opponent and did not deserve the win. One does not deserve to win at chess before they can perform a checkmate afterall.

There are endgames like the most basic K vs. K + pawn endgame where the weaker side has the opposition and can draw because of that. It is not luck and the weaker side does need to know what they are doing in order to be able to draw.

There are a lot more endgames like this, but I am not going to try to list them here.

now that i rethought what you said, you are also right.

Avatar of Fr3nchToastCrunch

What a roundabout way to admit that you suck at the game. Cope and seethe 🤷🏻‍♂️

Avatar of TheBlunderMaster356

stalemate is easy to avoid i dont know why people care about it

Avatar of Qinshu111_the_chess_panda

Stalemate is stalemate and we can’t do anything about it so just play xiangqi. Stalemate is a win there.

Avatar of long_quach

I said it before, I'll say again.

Stalemate grew out of a line of courtesy.

#1. You have to announce "check". Why? I don't know. If the goal is to kill the king, why would I give him an alarm unlike other pieces.

#2. The King cannot move into check. Why? Same reason. Other pieces don't have this exception.

#3. Stalemate grew out of that. The King cannot move into check.


It is an anomaly. It is not logical. Chinese chess kept stalemate as a win from Chaturanga because it is logical to the game.


I like having both ways. You can have both or one or the other if you want. Vanilla or chocolate ice cream or both.

Avatar of long_quach
Furballzzzz wrote:

Stalemate should = WIN

Stalemate is a win in the other lineage of Chaturanga, Chinese chess.

Stalemate is a win in what I call The Mirror Universe, from Star Trek.

Avatar of long_quach

There should be 2 Queens.

It exists in The Mirror Universe.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-variants/the-queen-mistress-variant#comment-110733341

Avatar of long_quach

Kramnk's change proposals.

https://www.chess.com/news/view/new-alphazero-paper-explores-chess-variants

No-castling

Pawn one square

Stalemate = win

Pawn-sideways


They all already in Chinese CHess.

They are in what I call The Mirror Universe.


Imagine that.

There are people who play chess in the you way propose for thousands of years already.

Avatar of long_quach

Ooh, I got an idea.

All of infantry should advance 2 steps at the same time.

Already in Chinese chess.

Avatar of ThrillerFan
long_quach wrote:

I said it before, I'll say again.

Stalemate grew out of a line of courtesy.

#1. You have to announce "check". Why? I don't know. If the goal is to kill the king, why would I give him an alarm unlike other pieces.

#2. The King cannot move into check. Why? Same reason. Other pieces don't have this exception.

#3. Stalemate grew out of that. The King cannot move into check.


It is an anomaly. It is not logical. Chinese chess kept stalemate as a win from Chaturanga because it is logical to the game.


I like having both ways. You can have both or one or the other if you want. Vanilla or chocolate ice cream or both.

What you say is total hogwash. In fact, in tournament play, you are specifically NOT supposed to say "check" because it can be viewed as a distraction to the opponent.

Stalemate is an art. Get over it!

Avatar of long_quach
ThrillerFan wrote:
long_quach wrote:

I said it before, I'll say again.

Stalemate grew out of a line of courtesy.

#1. You have to announce "check". Why? I don't know. If the goal is to kill the king, why would I give him an alarm unlike other pieces.

#2. The King cannot move into check. Why? Same reason. Other pieces don't have this exception.

#3. Stalemate grew out of that. The King cannot move into check.


It is an anomaly. It is not logical. Chinese chess kept stalemate as a win from Chaturanga because it is logical to the game.


I like having both ways. You can have both or one or the other if you want. Vanilla or chocolate ice cream or both.

What you say is total hogwash. In fact, in tournament play, you are specifically NOT supposed to say "check" because it can be viewed as a distraction to the opponent.

Stalemate is an art. Get over it!

The spirit of the rule still applies, stupid.

If I put the King in check, and not announce "check", and he did not move the King or defend it, can I capture the King on the next move? Stupid.

Avatar of BunTheSlay

stalemate is a draw. if you stalemate it was your fault and bad play.

Avatar of long_quach

I just figured out the logical way "stalemate" should be applied.

As a "pass" rule.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/i-wish-stalemate-is-a-win?page=2#comment-110781225

Avatar of long_quach

@Furballzzzz

Stalemate as a draw is real in real life. You don't have to move. You can stand still and wait it out.

We should bet rid of the stalemate rule and institute a "pass" rule.

A pass can or cannot lead to a draw.

Avatar of long_quach
DjVortex wrote:
Shlttens wrote:

Stalemate becoming a draw needs to be removed.

And replaced with what, exactly? And why?

During various points in history and at different parts of the world, stalemate has been:

  1. A win for the player who got stalemated.
  2. A loss for the player who got stalemated.
  3. An illegal move (ie. you can't make the move that makes the game a stalemate).
  4. A half-win for the player who delivers stalemate.
  5. A forfeiture of the turn of the player who got stalemated (ie. that player essentially skips his turn).
  6. A draw.

Which one of those is your favorite and why, exactly? Why is your choice better than the others?

Excellent question.

Get rid of stalemate.

Institute a "pass" rule.

A pass can or cannot lead to a draw.

The logic of battle still remains.

Avatar of BigChessplayer665

Oh God the forum has been taken over

Avatar of long_quach
BigChessplayer665 wrote:

Oh God the forum has been taken over

By a smarter person, as it should be.

Avatar of SacrifycedStoat
*passes in zugswang*
Passing is bad.

Look, #1. If you stalemate, it’s your fault. If it opponent finds a stalemate tactic, you shudder have allowed it.
If you stalemate your opponent, maybe you’ll see the logic of stalemate.

The point of checkmate is that the king is attacked and can’t escape. Of the king is locked in a box but not attacked, he’ll survive another day.