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.
It can if the king has just been stalemated.
When time stops, do galloping knights still make noise ?
It isn't and it shouldn't, period. Also, not worth reviving a zombie thread for.
Just so it's clear, this never happened to me. I'm aware of stalemate and I generally know how to avoid it, this isn't for personal gain.
Nobody has addressed the logic. I'm saying there should be less rules, not more. That's my point that this stalemate rule is arbitrary. You're always forced to make a move unless it happens to lose the game for you in which case it magically becomes a draw.
The other types of stalemate of which I'm aware make far more sense (50 moves without pawn move or capture and 3 repetitions - they're both a little arbitrary as well but it's clear what they're trying to prevent: endless games that aren't getting anywhere).
Maybe this is a bad example, but I'm pretty sure it was legal for men to basically rape their wives in England until a disturbingly recent time. Point being, there are lots of rules and lots of misconceptions that last a long time but which clearly made no sense in retrospect. Please defend the rules on the basis of logic, not tradition!
baddogno: Thanks I checked that forum and completely agree with the first post! Surely it's only a matter of time before they change this strange, misplaced rule! :)
Yes, it is a very bad example. Comparing the stalemate rule with the criminal law regarding rape? Does not seem a good idea. If you want examples of the arbitriness of rules, and fitting and persuasive ones, there are many you could have picked.
Of course I agree with others there's no reason to abolish the stalemate rule. You might as well get rid of en passant and castling as well.
In games that effect me both negatively and positively that end in a stalemate I absolutely despise this rule. If you or your opponent has been maneuvered or culled into a position where one is incapable of making a legal move then it is a victory for the prevailing player. How would it not be? You've achieved the objective of the game (to capture the king) by all the means at your disposal. Furthermore, to have a point(s) removed from you for a resulting stalemate is absolutely absurd when you or they have clearly been bested. Between the stalemate and the en passant I couldn't decide which I find more intolerable.
Removing stalemate would destroy chess, mostly because it would ruin endgame theory.
1) Every King and Pawn v King endgame would become won (assuming the pawn can't immediately be captured)
2) Ditto for K+R+P v K+R
3) Also K+R+B v K+R
4) Also two knights v king
etc etc etc. Huge amounts of nuance, theory, and strategy would be lost. Chess would become a much less interesting game because endgame would only be about material. There would be no technique needed to win say K+P v K because as long as you push the pawn when you're able to without dropping it you'll win. If you read an intermediate or advance endgame book you'll realize how important stalemate (or the possibility of stalemate) is to chess
Stock answer: K+P endgames would be boring wins for the side with the extra pawn. Always. That's why stalemate should remain as-is.
Funny that while this is a theoretical draw (if we assume king in front of the pawn), at the old chess it was a draw even without stalemate since you could promote only to a weak piece. Obviously, removing the stalemate nowadays would turn the game into a win.
"Your majesty, we have surrounded black king's castle. However, we can't enter his castle, but he can't also leave. It's a stalemate so I guess we won."
"You stupid knight. How can we get his information if we don't capture him?"
It doesn't make sense in some instances, such as bishop or knight + king against king, but it makes the process of chess more intuitive and makes you try harder
I think the stalemate rule should be adjusted a little bit
ie. 1) If in stalemate then the side stalemated can regenerate a piece of equal value on any square on their back row from which they can check the enemy king.
2) If that piece is then captured and it is not a check and opponent left without moves then the capturing piece and a piece of similar value to the piece that captured the previously regenerated piece will once again regenerate on the board with the capturing piece of the enemy being taken away .
3) If after 10 moves there is no captures , checkmates or alterations to the positioning of the stalemated king then game will be declared a draw .
4) If stalemating piece is captured then game will be declared an auto-win .
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.
It can if the king has just been stalemated.