Making stalemate a win or a loss would ruin the game of chess. Letting the opponent make more moves makes no sense. That would mean white could just make 5 consecutive moves to win this game:
Stalemate was invented by a loser
Sort:
Aug 7, 2024
0
#103
haveyouseencyan wrote:
Only a loser would come up with the dumb rule that is stalemate because only a loser would have this logic. It probably grew out of one player dominating the London chess club so they needed something to give losing players hope and keep playing.
Give me one example of any other real sport in the world that gives a life line to a player in heavily losing position. The only thing I can think of is potting the black in pool or snooker, but you can only do that with the intention of doing it.
I saw a comment here yesterday that summed it up perfectly - imagine the pieces exist in real life on the battlefield, the two armies fight and one dominates the other, only the king is left, surrounded by enemy units, he then says "ok guys, its a draw".
To anyone saying I will appreciate this rule in the future. I wont. You lost, you got dominated. You abused some stupid rule written by a loser with a losers mindset to get a draw in a lost position.
ur just a wussy that probably fell for a stalemate trap an now ur mad and want to get rid of stalemate
Aug 7, 2024
0
#104
#15 Good point. Also, yes, I haven’t read the other 100ish comments yet and I will now.
Aug 7, 2024
0
#106
If stalemate didn’t exist then people would resign after blundering a bishop and maybe a pawn.
I don't think you've thought this through fully...
Stalemate is not a standalone rule, but more of a codified coincidence based on two preexisting rules. The first, both sides must alternate moves, and neither side can skip their move. The second, The King cannot move into check. In all stalemate positions, it is impossible to avoid violating one of these two rules.
So, you might ask, why not remove one of these rules? I noticed someone already suggested the option of taking the King, (the ability for someone to ignore a check or move their king into check). However this would negatively impact beginners who are often unaware of threats and attacking pieces, and doubtless impact the game in other ways. The downsides of being able to skip a move are, I hope, immediately obvious.
Also, in terms of realism, Kings and commanders can often be trapped in the field of battle. However they can still escape given the advantage of time, which is (technically) given to them since it would be their turn to move. Meanwhile checkmate would symbolize the checking piece immediately pursuing and attacking the king, giving them no time to get away. They've also been known to run away when the opposing force becomes too great, and theirs too small. So if anything being down by a few Queens or rooks only adds to the realism of stalemate.
Also yeah, stop blaming other people for your own mistakes. You caused the stalemate in an easily winning position. Own up to it, and learn from it.
imbigbdk wrote:
i agree it would probably make beginners lose but isnt that a good habit to build? to protect ur king i dont really see how its a problem
Because it removes a safety net for everyone, and because it's not completely because of that. Being able to just take the king through blunt force takes away from the game's intrigue. And it's not the beginner on the losing side I'm concerned about, but the winning side. The ability to take the king makes the game much less challenging and complex. With stalemate, it forces the winning player to keep thinking in order to get the point. They have to earn it.
Aug 7, 2024
0
#113
jankogajdoskoLEM wrote:
What? Stalemate is incredible!!! You can pull it off too. Incredible rule, even in lost positions tha are hopeless one can Swindle the draw. Indeed. Increedible stuff. 8/10 Fide masters aprove.
This is the first time I ever agreed with you, ever since your post about the game being rigged.
checkmated0001 wrote:
imbigbdk wrote:
With stalemate, it forces the winning player to keep thinking in order to get the point. They have to earn it.
King and pawn opposition, playing through a winning rook endgame, checkmating with knight and bishop or two knights vs. pawn. Winning a queen endgame, long opposition tactics. There are dozens, if not hundreds of classic endgame studies that could lead to stalemate or a loss if played incorrectly, but won if played right. It doesn't always have to be stalemating from a position of overwhelming strength.
Aug 7, 2024
0
#117
haveyouseencyan wrote:
Only a loser would come up with the dumb rule that is stalemate because only a loser would have this logic. ...
Boohoo
Aug 7, 2024
0
#118
BadPlayerEasyToBeat wrote:
Imagine an army surrounding a castle, the king is trapped inside, but no matter how much the army swings there swords, they’re not getting the king. They’re stuck. Draw.
Bad example - that's how sieges work.
But you're not guaranteed to blunder those away. Don't you think that people should be rewarded for learning enough to hold a draw in a tricky endgame? Just like people should be forced to learn how to convert an endgame that is winning, but difficult to finish off. Also, king and pawn endgames are not easy by any stretch of the imagination.
Well than the whole concept of zugzwang/trapping pieces positionally becomes meaningless. So would any Endgame complexity or precision with pawn moves. The side with 1 more pawn would always automatically win.