I could go on, but think this topic is played out so will refrain unless there is still interest
The Illogic of Abolishing Stalemate
Sort:
What's FCOL mean? Haven't come across that acronym before
Never mind - for crying out loud. Figured it out after I clicked submit
Stalemate is here to stay.
Jul 19, 2012
0
#7
I'm also with the OP in this matter. When I saw the complaints about the Stalemate rule I was a bit upset but just for fun I set up a thread about " the Silly Rules of Chess " ( ie: trying to use sarcasm ). Some funny stuff got posted there lol.
Wow. Tickle_Monsta's blowing up at people on his stalemate thread.
Too bad he can't address the Direct Refutation of all of his Nonsense - The cornered player is not responsible for not having a move. His opponent is and is therefore the one who should be punished.
Tickle_Monsta's been saying all along that the cornered player is the one responsible for stalemate and he's Dead Wrong. lol
Tickle_Me_Elmo's other position - that a game of chess, according to the rules of chess, is won in other ways besides checkmate is also Dead Wrong. Losing on time is not a rule of chess - it's a rule applied to chess. Big Difference.
Huh. Thought about joining chess.com this weekend but they've relegated this thread to "off topic" when it's clearly not and aren't allowing other chess.com users to see it.
Meanwhile, they allow what appears to be an unstable person bash other people on a readily-accessible forum.
Guess I'll forego paying for this site after all
I know there's another thread on this topic, but I was banned from it so here is why I think abolishing stalemate is illogical:
1) A game of chess ends, *according to the rules of chess*, ONLY when one player's king is attacked and cannot escape attack. Losing on time is not a rule *of chess,* it's a rule *applied to* chess. Tons of casual games are played without a clock. Are those not games of chess?
To say losing on time is a rule of chess is like saying that losing because my cell phone goes off twice in a tournament is a rule of chess because I have to forfeit the game. That's not a rule *of chess* either. It's a rule *applied to* chess.
The guy who wants to abolish stalemate also says that the cornered player should be punished for not being able to move. But who is responsible for him not being able to move? His opponent! His opponent made the last move before the stalemate position and is the one responsible for the cornered player being unable to move. The cornered player shouldn't be punished; his opponent should (and is under the current rule.)