Stalemate Sucks.

According to Chathuranga (Indian chess - ancient form of chess), Stalemate is a win..

here's a good point: if you draw a game you were winning because of stalemate you'll hate the rule. however if you draw a game you were losing because of it you'll be grateful of the rule:D

The thing is, I'd call a position "winning" only if:

1. You have a big material advantage - means that there's enough pieces on the board that stalemate won't happen if you're careful enough

2. You can force a win

Therefore, if you're up a pawn in an endgame but cannot force a win, I wouldn't call the position "winning" at all.

@ ajmeroski

Material advantage doesn't matter if those pieces are not in position.. Big Material advantage of inactive pieces doesn't mean winning....

I knew someone would say that! I meant only situations when a player that is down material may somehow stalemate = probably king&blocked pawns only

i have been trying to insert my game against pforde that prompted me to start this thread in the first place, but i cant seem to do it ?

You blundered the game away by stalemating your opponent. Get over it.

Cheers

If we'd live that long I would bet every last cent I had that at least one change was made to the rules of chess in the next 1000 years. Games change and evolve, they don't stay stagnant for a millenium.

I'm sure 1000 years ago someone thought the same thing and they look quite foolish for saying so.

So if what is being in this thread is true:

At one point stalemate WAS a win and had been for a long time it seems.

A great player like Nimzovich suggested that a stalemate should be a win.

Yet despite these things anyone who suggests that a stalemate should be a win is complete moron for even suggesting such a thing.... very interesting.

Right now stalemate is a rule.

If you guys really want it changed I suggest creating a chess variation where a stalemate is considered a win for the side that gets the opponent in stalemate. If the variation becomes popular enough eventually the major world chess organizations will have to start taking a look at it.

In the meantime the stalemate rule isn't going to be changed in regular chess. It would have to be a grassroots movement.

[Note that I actually like the stalemate draw rule. But I don't think people who dislike it are trolls or fools. If they want to try and change it, I won't stop them, but that seems to me like the only method that could work eventually with time.]

Anyone who is happy to and contented to manage to worm their way to a stalemate should not be playing any type of game or sport, they are missing the point of playing to win in the contest.

Nobody plays for stalemate if they can still win, it's to save themselves from losing.

KATKINSKIRK, you seem to be confusing this kind of stalemate:

With this kind:

In the first diagram, it's indeed true that any serious chess player would probably have resigned long before this stalemate happened. However, if your opponent is going to stalemate you, playing on is justified and you have deserved the half point.

In the second diagram, the pawn endgame was probably bound to become a draw by either stalemate or insufficient material for the last 10+ moves.

I can see how you want the situation in the first diagram to be a win for black, as clearly he has outplayed his opponent and simply blundered in the last move. In reality though, technically it's the same situation as the second diagram, where the king is not in check and he has no legal moves available.

The fact is that stalemate is not always a blunder by the stalemating player. The other player, while he may have played on 2 queens down and hoped for the best, may also have simply traded down to a K+P vs. K endgame, or a K+B+RP wrong color vs. K, or any other endgame, which he knows will end in a draw by stalemate.

Just stop whining and win the games your opponents don't resign the right way: by checkmating.

But i am trying to understand the mentality of the player that clearly can not win, and will play on and hope to survive to gain a stalemate. in that instance is it not the sporting thing to say to yourself, ok i have been outplayed and beaten on this occassion, i will show my respect and resign

But you haven't been outplayed if your opponent doesn't have a way to win.

I don't think you understand endgames, improve your endgame ability and come back to the topic.

One of the things that seperates the ordinary from the great (not just in chess, in all sports) is the ability to play badly and still get results. Great players don't just give up if they've got a difficult position, they keep fighting and often find a way of salvaging something.

By your logic, Man Utd should have thrown the towel in after 85 minutes in the 1999 Champions League final, because they were losing and had been outplayed for the whole game.

Did you just completely skip my post?

"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our garden."

What's your point?

I think you tried to make me look silly without holding the crucial ability of comprehension.