We Abolish Stalemate! Today!

LucasInn
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

The difference is -- you should be responsible for making sure *you* have legal moves... but not for your opponents. This is a war after all.

We could also introduce a "pass rule" where you can pass your move and are not forced to move. This would resolve this issue above. (If both sides pass 2 then its a draw)

Woah woah woah, so your idea was to let each side pass their moves until the time runs out? Terrible.

EndgameStudier
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

If you have many forces but they are all immobilised it stands to reason you can't use the force (ie you don't have force)... draw. If your army is still active and able to use it's forces and your opponents isn't... obviously this should be a win.

Even if the army is trapped, if you have none, how are you going to kill the king? Even if you pretended alll those pieces didn't exist except the king, it would still be king vs king. No one is "required" to move in a war.

Monster_with_no_Name
LucasInn wrote:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

The difference is -- you should be responsible for making sure *you* have legal moves... but not for your opponents. This is a war after all.

We could also introduce a "pass rule" where you can pass your move and are not forced to move. This would resolve this issue above. (If both sides pass 2 then its a draw)

Woah woah woah, so your idea was to let each side pass their moves until the time runs out? Terrible.

 

(If both sides pass 2 times then its a draw)

Can you read?

Napoleon-Blownapart
JustARandomPatzer wrote:

 

Napoleon-Blownapart wrote:

 

you’d think the fide boys would be monitoring a site like this for new developments. a bit surprised after all the evidence against stalemate put forward here and yet we are still stuck with it. 

its like letting an innocent little girl buy a lucky bag only for a jack in the box to whack her in the face

 

And what about the evidence supporting stalemate? Are you simply ignoring that?

 

yes, it is in fact best ignored, thanks for that thumbup.png

lfPatriotGames
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:

If you have many forces but they are all immobilised it stands to reason you can't use the force (ie you don't have force)... draw. If your army is still active and able to use it's forces and your opponents isn't... obviously this should be a win.

I dont understand that.  The way I understand it is if you still have forces (like chess pieces or weapons) just because they are immobile doesn't mean the other side wins. The other side wins, in chess and in war, when the forces are used. If they are immobile, they aren't being used, so there is no way to win.

If your army is still active and able to use it's forces, that's not enough. That doesn't mean a win. Able to use the army isn't the same as actually using the army. That's why checkmate is required to win. There has to be an actual attack with the forces, not just be able to attack.

You aren't responsible for your opponents moves. Your responsibility is to make sure he is attacked, and then cannot move. No attack, no win.

Napoleon-Blownapart

he is saying a stalemated king is a sitting duck, he can’t move but the opponents pieces can, so the move in to behead the immobilized king.

Napoleon-Blownapart

of course, chess is a gentleman’s and ladies game, so it’s “after you, Sir”.

bring back the days when chess was for fighters.