The rules are all arbitrary, but they're also fine-tuned to make for an incredibly beautifully balanced and complex game. I think removing stalemate would deprive the game of much of its balance and nuanced complexity.
I tend to view stalemate as a very specific type of fortress. One in which the king's inability to move into check is what ultimately provides his protection.
It seems to me that if a stalemate were a win, it would make strong players more cautious, at least at the master level where money and reputation are at stake. Would a GM be as likely to offer a speculative pawn sacrifice without knowing there are drawing chances if the idea doesn't work out? If you win a pawn, why bother to continue attacking? Just exchange down and win the sure but boring way. I think the rule change is a horrible idea for these reasons.
I like your logic OP.
I also thought of it this way. In the modern era of clocks if you had no legal moves doesnt that also mean that it should be lost on time?
If my opponent only had moves that they dont want to make and they keept looking it would eventually result in the flag dropping. I understand that in the case of stalemate It is obvious there are no futher options but its just a thought.
I for one, as an admitted patzer, like endgames losing some of the pointless complexity as I feel (admittedly biased) The winning side should almost always win.
The old 1500 rule someone mentioned also apeals to me. King + knight equals win, yes sir.
I for one, as an admitted patzer, like endgames losing some of the pointless complexity as I feel (admittedly biased) The winning side should almost always win.
The old 1500 rule someone mentioned also apeals to me. King + knight equals win, yes sir.
Sounds as if checkers could be a better option than chess for you ... no "pointless complexity" there, just a load of mini-bishops beating each other up.
And I'd love to see the mate pattern for K+N v. K ... ;)
Both good points.
If you dont like the rules then create a totally new game with the rules you want, but dont call it chess or try to change the current rules of chess.
Most people like them just the way they are.
The game of chess is rich and nuanced regardless of this stalemate rule. The rule adds nothing. The alternative adds at least as much. Keep in mind that many situations where you could previously force a "stalemate", you would now be able to force a victory. Or someone could force a victory with very little material. The subtlety and potential for creativity remains intact.
The rules of Chess aren't arbitrary but are generally very simple and natural - diagonal or lateral motion by 1 or many spaces, more of the weak pieces, a nice symmetrical starting position. Only the pawns capture a bit strangely and the knights are unique (but their movement is pretty much the simplest type of non-straight movement). And variations are fun and interesting and the game may yet evolve (however stubborn you may be). However, clearly it's current form is very appealing (except for this misconception about "legal" moves).
chessmicky: Ironically it's because of plodding unimaginative logic that we get this stalemate rule which forgets what the original aim of Chess is which has nothing to do with legal moves or checkmate.
I have yet to hear any arguments better than "BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT CHESS IS". I like Chess but that's why this aberration which doesn't add to the game but which is frustratingly and obviously illogical should be removed IMHO.
Please don't bother with sarcasm or arrogance, you're diluting the discussion and bringing negativity. Just address the question: why is having stalemate *better* than simply having to capture the King? I think the second one is more sophisticated than what people realise. Thank you to the people who are adding opinions and ideas on both sides :)
I also find it hilarious that people are implying it's easy to get way ahead in material and that that shouldn't necessarily result in a win. Let's focus on the upper echelons of Chess, not the rare cases where someone foolishly loses with a wealth of material - I don't care about that! The "illegallity" of self-check also prevents people from making stupid mistakes but it seems you blindly support that rule because of it's grand history!
Stalemate is not "better" than the alternative, nor is the alternative "better" than stalemate. They are different sets of rules, and cannot be directly compared as such, since they result in different games. The matter of which is in practice today is an issue of history and circumstances, less to do with logic. All the rules are ultimately arbitrary, and that's why it's but a game (not a field of natural science.)
In chess, stalemate is a draw, and we get wonderful problems and endgame technique out of it (even the humble K+P v K is surprisingly deep, and many middle/endgame swindles arose from stalemates) In xiangqi, stalemate is a loss for the stalemated side, and again we get many delicate compositions and technique from this (K+H v K+A is a win for the knight, K+2C v K+2A a win for the cannons, etc.) In shogi, stalemate is as likely as getting hit by 3 asteroids at once, and is a non-factor (although to cover the possibility, it's judged as a loss for the stalemated side, whose play would necessarily frankly deserve it.) Is xiangqi better than chess? Is shogi better than chess? YES THEY ARE!
It's the same as questioning why the xiangqi "facing kings" rule differs from the same in janggi, or why the chess knight can jump but the xiangqi knight "has its foot blocked" while the shogi knight can only ever move forward. Why? Because history is as such.
I have no issue with the playability or merit of a stalemate-less chess. If you can find people to play it with, start a federation and run tournaments, go ahead. It is another type of chess. However, questioning its validity in the official rules of chess (as adopted by the world, and merely regulated by FIDE) is not an option, as this is what chess is.
(tl;dr stalemate is there BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT CHESS IS, illogical or not. It's like questioning the validity of the 7-day week, "since a 5-day week would give exactly 73 weeks in a year and makes more sense".)
"The game of chess is rich and nuanced regardless of this stalemate rule."
True.
"The rule adds nothing."
Not true. Stalemate allows the worse-off side a chance wriggle out of what is otherwise certain defeat, thereby forcing the stronger side to play more carefully. This is a good thing. Also, the chance of a saving draw makes some positions very interesting as opposed to dead lost (i.e., boring).
"The rules of Chess aren't arbitrary"
Of course they are. Why is the board 8 by 8 and not 10 by 10 or 6 by 6? Whey can pawns take a double first step? Why can't pawns move sideways are backwards? Why can pawns promote to any piece (of the same color) instead of only being exchanged for a captured piece (i.e., why can a player have two Queens). Why can't Queens move like knights in addition to their other powers. Why shouldn't players be able to arrange their pieces in any way they want at the start of the game?
There are no "logical" reasons why Chess rules are they way they are, they are arbitrary. As such, there is no "logical" defense for the statelmate rule (although see below). The important question isn't "Is it logical?" but "Does it make for more interesting play?". I find play with the threat of statlemate more interesting than not.
Having said all that, here's a "logical" defense of statlemate. The rules are:
1) Moves alternate between players. It is not possible to "pass" on a move.
2) It is not permissalbe to move into check.
3) To win the game it is necessary to checkmate your opponent.
In a situation where one side is compelled to move, but has no move to make, but is not in checkmate what happens? The other side cannot win (per rule 3). So then what? I would argue that, as the rules of chess are currently written, it is logical to say that the result of this situation is a draw.
I love stalemates.... do it purposely if I start losing.
Hehe... that is why I have 27 draws.
The old 1500 rule someone mentioned also apeals to me. King + knight equals win, yes sir.
Errr... I even wonder whether you can force a stalemate with a sole knight. And a bishop ? I suspect yes, but...
Remellion: Thanks, that's pretty interesting! I don't know much about those other games.
Of course the rules of Chess are arbitrary but I guess I was talking more about naturalness and simplicity. Starting from as few assumptions or rules as possible like in science or maths.
And for me Chess revolves around one aim - to capture the King. Everything else arises directly from that one aim - checkmate makes perfect sense, self-check being "illegal" makes sense. But then stalemate is an anomaly. Checkmate is a win because it's implied that whatever they do, you take their King. Stalemate is the same to me!
The whole thought process of Chess centres largely on considering possible moves and consequences. A checkmate is confirmed by doing this process to see if the King can escape capture. Notice that the person being checkmated doesn't have any "legal" moves and yet we still label it a win. The only difference from stalemate here is that they're also in check, however being in check doesn't otherwise indicate a win.
If you simply go with "first person to capture the King wins", the game will always end with a King getting captured (except for endless games where forced capture has become impossible which are reasonably labelled as draws). But by restricting "illegal" moves, games that would otherwise finish (or become endless draws) can then become frozen "stalemate" positions. So the game just breaks, abruptly stops. This seems like a failing of the rules which then gets lazily patched up with the label of a draw even though the pieces can physically (if not legally) move.
I do think rules can and should be challenged, even old ones. People should always feel free to question them. If the rules have solid reasons behind them then they will only gain and maintain respect and understanding from analysis. Otherwise they should rightfully be fixed. It's never too late.
Honestly I don't care all that much, I never planned to actually cause the rule to change. But if people could acknowledge that MAYBE it doesn't make complete sense (and that the alternative might make more sense and still has interesting gameplay) that'd be great!
That's my point that this stalemate rule is arbitrary.
True.
So is the rule than the knight moves in a L-shape.
IMO the knight does not - it moves directly on one of the intermediate compass points such as NNE, ENE etc. That's why it appears to jump over other pieces; there isn't a square-centre between, say, b1 and c3, so on a Knightly diagonal there is no obstruction.
/hijack
/decides not to waste electrons trying to argue the OP out of his position.
That's my point that this stalemate rule is arbitrary.
True.
So is the rule than the knight moves in a L-shape.
IMO the knight does not - it moves directly on one of the intermediate compass points such as NNE, ENE etc. That's why it appears to jump over other pieces; there isn't a square-centre between, say, b1 and c3, so on a Knightly diagonal there is no obstruction.
/hijack
/decides not to waste electrons trying to argue the OP out of his position.
No, no, no. Knights move one square diagonally and then one square laterally provided the lateral move does not land them on a square adjascent to their starting square.
Or alternatively (but far less accurately) one square laterally and then one square diagonally provided the diagonal move does not land them on a square adjascent to their starting square.
Or was it that knights move to any opposite coloured square in the 5x5 box who's centre is the square they're currently on?
Jeeze, is there an actual concensus on this? Why are we bothering to discuss stalemate when this hasn't even been resolved?
I don't think the knight move is too confusing. Gil-Gandel's explanation makes sense, the knight moves on certain in-between diagonals (1 across, 2 up or vice-versa, etc: a gradient of +-2 or +-1/2) and it can only move 1 unit in those directions. Nothing is impeding it. Or it jumps because it's a horse.
Shortest definition - a Knight at the centre of a 5x5 box can make every move which a Queen cannot. If you don't know how a Queen moves: a Queen at the centre of a 5x5 box can make every move which a Knight cannot. A Rook, a Bishops or a Knight standing at the centre of the box can each reach 8 squares within it, none of which could be reached by either of the other two pieces.
What's stalemate?
Shortest definition - a Knight at the centre of a 5x5 box can make every move which a Queen cannot.
Not true, it cannot stand on its place.
The hijack is on its way.
If you want simplicity and logic in your game rules, try checkers. Or go. Any type of chess with a king to trap (not kill) is quite totally arbitrary. Anything larger than Chu Shogi would be a fantastic exemplar of arbitrarity.
Checkers: No legal moves, you lose.
Go: Why would you EVER run out of moves? WHY? If you do, then (a) you should have stopped to count score many many moves ago, and (b) you are left with only one-eyed dead groups, if any, and have been steamrolled 361-0, not counting captured stones and komi.
(This shows the superiority of shogi/go/xiangqi/janggi/checkers over chess. AHA.)
That's my point that this stalemate rule is arbitrary.
True.
So is the rule than the knight moves in a L-shape.
The board could also be spherical and made of leather and be sent by teams of eleven players into the opponent's camp. That would just be another set of arbitrary rules, but somehow it's not called "chess".