I agree!
STALEMATES
Sort:
I agree. I've had players that have worked their way into a Stalemate.
i agree!
Wow stalemate is kinda one of the most popular topics here...
Actually stalemate doesn't happen a lot at GM level, because most of position drawn by stalemate like queen vs. rook pawn at 7th rank and are avoided by good players.
So I can't see how that can help reduce number of draws.
What really can help, is giving 3 points for win and 1 for draw. Then people would prefer play for win and not for draw
At first glance I like the idea. I think of the bishop and rook pawn scenario - "the impotent pair" - where the queening square is of the opposite colour of the bishop - or two knights against a lone king.
(In draughts/checkers "Stalemate" is a win for the side who's opponent has no move.)
Some interesting question can arise . No doubt two knights can "force" stalemate, but off the top of my head I couldn't see how a lone bishop and king could.
I disagree, I think that if you can force a stalemate then you deserve a draw, and if you spoil a win, then you deserve a draw
In an interview with Peter Long, not a long time ago, Torre expressed his opinion about stalemates. He said he hope FIDE will change the rules for stalemate. For example, a win = 3 points, a loss =0 of course, a draw=1.5 points, stalemate = 2 points, where the player without a move gets only 1 point. By these format, chess becomes more attractive and there will be less draws, he said.
I totally agree with GM Torre.