Why no notation for stalemte? - Chess Forums - Page 4

Scythian741 · 2015-04-06T19:45:36-07:00

It is bugs me like hell there is no notation for stalemate. Jus sayin'

SmyslovFan

Jun 30, 2015

0

#61

You know which side did the stalemating by seeing who made the last move.

MikeCrockett

Jun 30, 2015

0

#62

chessplayer042 wrote:

MikeCrockett wrote:

So far it seems no one has suggested a scheme for noting which color was stalemated White or Black. Obviously the player who can't move is the one stalemated but how would you note that result on a database or say a result sheet where the game score isn't available?

There is zero need to note such things. A draw is a draw and a win is a win, how the status was reached is totally irrelevant unless you are interested in the game, and then you don't need the notation anyway.

I disagree. I happen to believe Chess would be less drawish and more interesting if the scoring for stalemate was changed. It would not change how the game is played but it would change how the players competed. If pro basketball can add a three point shot rule then we can do the same.

MikeCrockett

Jun 30, 2015

0

#63

SmyslovFan wrote:

You know which side did the stalmating by seeing who made the last move.

Assuming you have the score sheet yes. Not true if you're reading a cross table of a round robin and want to know who forced who out of moves.

Game_of_Pawns

Jun 30, 2015

0

#64

MikeCrockett wrote:

I disagree. I happen to believe Chess would be less drawish and more interesting if the scoring for stalemate was changed. It would not change how the game is played but it would change how the players competed. If pro basketball can add a three point shot rule then we can do the same.

Nothing about this post makes any sense at all. Nothing. It makes so little sense that it isn't even worth it for me to start correcting specifics...

MikeCrockett

Jun 30, 2015

0

#65

of course there are those who are so closed minded as to not see that thinking outside the box may have it's benefits. :-)

Game_of_Pawns

Jun 30, 2015

0

#66

MikeCrockett wrote:

of course there are those who are so closed minded as to not see that thinking outside the box may have it's benefits. :-)

You're right. There are. Now, read the post I quoted, then tell me it made sense. Then tell me that I am a prime example of a closed minded person. Do it. I want you to. I really do.

MikeCrockett

Jun 30, 2015

0

#67

Ask yourself the question... How would the game change if Stalemate were scored 3/4 - 1/4 instead of 1/2 - 1/2?

bjolan

Jun 30, 2015

0

#68

And what if: A victory give 3 – 0, a draw give 1 – 1 and a draw with stalemate 2 – 1.

Game_of_Pawns

Jun 30, 2015

0

#69

MikeCrockett wrote:

Ask yourself the question... How would the game change if Stalemate were scored 3/4 - 1/4 instead of 1/2 - 1/2?

That is a very complicated hypothetical. One that I don't wish to waste my time on. What I can tell you though, is that it would change how the game is played. Also, if it didn't (absurd), then by definition it couldn't change how the players competed.

MikeCrockett

Jun 30, 2015

0

#70

Good! That works too. This is not a new idea folks. GM Pal Benko suggested an alternate scoring theme many years ago to help avoid GM draws. Regardless of what method floats your boat, What benefit does it give the game? I can name a few... making GM draws harder is just one. Think of the impact to game theory. All that computer analysis out the door because you have to now understand how to squeeze that extra 1/4 point of a "drawn position".

pt22064

Jun 30, 2015

0

#71

Perhaps one reason there is no stalemate symbol is because stalemates are relatively rare. Checkmates are, in contrast, quite common. I've never been stalemated or stalemated my opponent in a single USCF tournament game. I've had a handful of stalemates over 40 years of playing in casual games where I was fooling around -- typically, I blundered and stalemated my opponent when i had a won position! Of course, I was not recording moves during these casual games and had no need for a stalemate symbol.

SmyslovFan

Jun 30, 2015

0

#72

I've played stalemate traps in games. They are more common than you may realize. In fact, Informant's Encyclopedia of Chess Middlegames has an entire section on stalemates. Here's one beautiful example:

Sqod

Jun 30, 2015

0

#73

pt22064 wrote:

Perhaps one reason there is no stalemate symbol is because stalemates are relatively rare. Checkmates are, in contrast, quite common.

Actually, mates are rare in GM games, too. The main benefit I see to having a special symbol is in analysis, especially in endgame notations where you might see something like 34. RxR?? stalemate. (Or 34. RxR$.) Then for example if you are searching for games that have many stalemate possibilities you can just search on PGN files that have many occurrences of the stalemate symbol.

By the way, the triangle symbol is already used in Informants to mean "with the idea." (http://www.chessinformant.org/system-of-signs/) What I believe would be the ultimate is to be able to notate *every* idea you wanted to convey in a chess game with symbols or keywords, basically another language.

MikeCrockett

Jun 30, 2015

0

#74

pt22064 wrote:

Perhaps one reason there is no stalemate symbol is because stalemates are relatively rare. Checkmates are, in contrast, quite common. I've never been stalemated or stalemated my opponent in a single USCF tournament game. I've had a handful of stalemates over 40 years of playing in casual games where I was fooling around -- typically, I blundered and stalemated my opponent when i had a won position! Of course, I was not recording moves during these casual games and had no need for a stalemate symbol.

Your basic K+P vs K should be a stalemate if your position is bad so it is more common than you might think. To avoid stalemate you would have to consider if it is wise to trade down to such a position or keep that extra piece on the board to save that 1/4 point. This is an example of how changing the scoring system alters how you think about the strategy without altering the rules of the game.

AbstractApproach

Jun 25, 2019

0

#75

Sqod wrote:

Actually, I think "$" is a good idea because it almost looks like the hash mark "#" because it already (in writing) has two vertical bars through it, and it's not used for any other meaning, whereas "S" is German for "Springer" (knight). Also, "$" looks like an "S", which would stand for "stalemate."

I support this. I like the // for resigns and if the last move has no # $ or // then the players stopped playing by influence other than the battlefield. 1-0 or 0-1 indicated a a time win.

Threefold repitition and agreement are essentially the same thing, and the 50 move rule should be abandoned. Threefold already ensures a finite game eventually and if the two players want to keep going then what does anyone elses opinion matter? This makes a .5-.5 unambiguous.

jsaepuru

Jun 25, 2019

0

#76

ronaldlorimer kirjutas:

Threefold repitition and agreement are essentially the same thing, and the 50 move rule should be abandoned. Threefold already ensures a finite game eventually and if the two players want to keep going then what does anyone elses opinion matter?

No, threefold repetition can be forced (by perpetual check) or voluntary. And threefold ensures a finite game, but impractically long. There are 64 squares on chessboard, how many distinct positions for even a simple dead drawn position of kings and two knights?

AbstractApproach

Jun 26, 2019

0

#77

Fair points,

Even if it is forced, it's still basically an acknowledgement that this game will never have a winner. I still consider them very similar.

And I thought about the later point after I made my post last night, I hate the ad hoc nature of the 50 move rule but it does fix a problem and it's hard to see another solution.

My post was definitely made without thourogh forthought

cameranmurphy

Apr 2, 2023

0

#78

stalemate could be +-+

Rhaileymelad1035

Jul 25, 2023

0

#79

The Notation Of Stalamate Is A Dollar Sign

IceFortHotel

Aug 19, 2024

0

#80

Super old thread, but I don't care.