It simply comes down to one thing: A player cannot be compelled to make an illegal move.
That's correct, and since a stalemated player can't move, the game ends. The arbitrary rule says the result of this recently ended game is a draw; logic says it is a loss by forfeit for the stalemated player.
What logic?
Explain precisely.
I'm inclined to believe that eliminating stalemate as a draw would increase endgame play and interest. IMO, anything that reduces the number of draws in top level chess would be better for chess, as a sporting activity.
I think "intuition" says it is a forfeit, however it is not. Winning side must overcome his/her relaxedness and be careful not to step into a stalemate position. This is how it is in chess. There are plenty other rules in other games where also the rule is counter-intuitive: For example in some variants of checkers your last remaining three pieces become extra strong and you get a chance to win! Also in modern strategy games, e.g. Starcraft 2 there are plenty imbalances which allow players to win or draw in awkward positions. In modern strategy gaming, it is understood that "counter-intuitive" moves make the game more compelling and perhaps fun sometimes.
Still if you want to crop out these counter-intuitive rules, that won't be able to become a standard. It might have a future as a chess variant however, just like Chess960.
You call that logic? The person in stalemate is not moving, which is "logically" a forfeit? Please point us to the laws of logic involved here.
And no, using analogies won't count.
Is that a joke? First of all, analogies always "count"; you get no say in that matter whatsoever.
Your post is tantamount to saying:
"You call that logic? The person who didn't show up for the game is not moving, which is "logically" a forfeit? Please point us to the laws of logic involved here."
Logic simply means "valid reasoning". The reason I say it is "logically" a forfeit is because it is not a forfeit according to the arbitrary rule, so I can't simply say, without qualification, "it is a forfeit"; but valid reasoning leads to the conclusion that it is a forfeit. To reach this conclusion you need to know what the concept of a forfeit is, and then you determine whether or not a stalemate fits this concept. In chess, the concept of a forfeit is when someone can not or will not move. A resignation is an example of someone who will not move. A time forfeit is an example of someone who can not move. A failure-to-show forfeit is an example of someone who is unable to move, and most likely unwilling as well (assuming their failure-to-show was voluntary). This concept is not unique to chess, but rather, it is virtually universal.
In stalement, we have a player who can not move, which is logically a forfeit.
Claiming someone has abandoned the game because they aren't able to make a move is absurd.
Or so you say. In reality, I said that someone who has no legal move has effectively abandoned the game, because the effect is exactly the same as if they got up and left, i.e., they are not making their move, nor will they ever. This is logically a forfeit.
They are not making their move because the game is over. Not because they are refusing to. Therefore the outcome is whatever the game decides, and whatever the rule is is logical.
The game is over because they can't make a move. The arbitrary rule says this is a draw; logic says this is a forfeit.
Anologies are not considered part of any correct logical calculus, therefore they can be used as examples and explanations, but they can't be part of a logical reasoning.
You are right, logic means "valid reasoning". The laws of logic tell us which conclusions are valid.
Lets look at your reasoning. You use the precondition "In chess, the concept of a forfeit is when someone can not or will not move".
No, not true, obviously. Where did you pick up this "concept of a forfeit in chess"?
Precondition wrong -> no valid reasoning.
The logic is that ultimately one has to checkmate the opponent, in order to win. If one is stalemated, then neither side can fullfill that criterion. As no player won, and no player lost, the only result that can logically be awarded is the draw.
/Thread
The logic is that ultimately one has to checkmate the opponent, in order to win. If one is stalemated, then neither side can fullfill that criterion. As no player won, and no player lost, the only result that can logically be awarded is the draw.
/Thread
The fulfillment of a checkmate and a stalemate are ultimately the same; The opposing king can't make a move in which their king will be captured the next move. The only difference is that one is attacking the king directly while the other isn't. Because you can't compel a player to make an illegal move, checking the king when it has nowhere to go legally (checkmate) and preventing the king from going anywhere legally (stalemate) fulfill the criteria for ending the game.
Oh, /thread. ;)
Being able to force your opponent to stalemate you is a skill, and contributes to the complexity of chess. Stop trying to ruin our game. If you don't like chess, find a another game to play instead of attempting to find imaginary loopholes in a game which has no contradictory elements to it.
Stringing nonsense words together in nonsense sentences does not convince.
I'm done.
It's like trying to prove there's a hole in a newly manufactured cinder block.
Being able to force your opponent to stalemate you is a skill, and contributes to the complexity of chess. Stop trying to ruin our game. If you don't like chess, find a another game to play instead of attempting to find imaginary loopholes in a game which has no contradictory elements to it.
I doubt this would ruin the game of Chess, let's not be overly dramatic here. I'm not for changing the rule but if the rule did get changed I'd love chess all the same.
Looks like stalemate here.
So who stalemated who? I think the side that Stalemated should be declared the winner. :P
They are not making their move because the game is over. Not because they are refusing to. Therefore the outcome is whatever the game decides, and whatever the rule is is logical.
The game is over because they can't make a move. The arbitrary rule says this is a draw; logic says this is a forfeit.
Why does logic say it's a forfeit?
Let me point out that MaximRecoil even stated that the chess rules are "internally inconsistent". This would mean that you do not need external context to deduce the inconsistency. This in turn would mean that a logical calculus existed which would allow to deduce an inconsistent statement of the kind "X and not X" purely from the chess rules.
I've yet to see this kind of deduction.
I'm under the impression that MaximRecoil uses "logical" and "sensible" or "reasonable" synonymously (yes, one might argue that the OP's point is reasonable. "Reasonable" is a much weaker term than "logical").
Being able to force your opponent to stalemate you is a skill, and contributes to the complexity of chess. Stop trying to ruin our game. If you don't like chess, find a another game to play instead of attempting to find imaginary loopholes in a game which has no contradictory elements to it.
I doubt this would ruin the game of Chess, let's not be overly dramatic here. I'm not for changing the rule but if the rule did get changed I'd love chess all the same.
Yes it will. somethings shouldn't be changed, there are certain rules you don't mess with, and chess has an ancient history that shouldn't be messed with. Being up a pawn will pretty much be an auto win, that's no fun..
It simply comes down to one thing: A player cannot be compelled to make an illegal move.
That's correct, and since a stalemated player can't move, the game ends. The arbitrary rule says the result of this recently ended game is a draw; logic says it is a loss by forfeit for the stalemated player.
Every rule in chess is arbitrary. Logic is irrelevant here. Set of rules has to be consistent and unambiguous and this is the case with chess rules - at any moment during the game we know what is legal and if the game is over or not. Games are played for pleasure and existing rules create highly enjoyable experience for vast majority of players.
What logic?
Explain precisely.
I already have explained precisely.
I think "intuition" says it is a forfeit, however it is not.
Intuition and logic says it is a forfeit, for reasons I have already explained.
Anologies are not considered part of any correct logical calculus, therefore they can be used as examples and explanations, but they can't be part of a logical reasoning.
A valid analogy is an example of valid reasoning, thus it is an example of logic. The conclusion of a valid argument from analogy doesn't constitute a "logical truth", but that doesn't mean that the argument is illogical.
Lets look at your reasoning. You use the precondition "In chess, the concept of a forfeit is when someone can not or will not move".
No, not true, obviously. Where did you pick up this "concept of a forfeit in chess"?
Yes, true, obviously. It is not only the concept of forfeit in chess, but a virtually universal concepts in games/sports in general. There is only one relevant distinction between someone who has abandoned or effectively abandoned a game, and someone who has not abandoned or effectively abandoned the game, and that distinction is that the latter is making his moves while the former isn't. This applies to all cases of forfeit in chess; i.e., whether they ran out of time, didn't show up, or resigned, they are not making a move, nor will they ever, thus it is considered a forfeit. Stalemate fits this concept of forfeit perfectly.
Precondition wrong -> no valid reasoning.
In reality, valid reasoning can proceed from a false precondition or premise, though the conclusion will be wrong. However, you have not established a false precondition here.
The logic is that ultimately one has to checkmate the opponent, in order to win.
You can also win if your opponent forfeits.
Why does logic say it's a forfeit?
I've already answered that question in a previous post.
What logic?
Explain precisely.
I already have explained precisely.
I think "intuition" says it is a forfeit, however it is not.
Intuition and logic says it is a forfeit, for reasons I have already explained.
Anologies are not considered part of any correct logical calculus, therefore they can be used as examples and explanations, but they can't be part of a logical reasoning.
A valid analogy is an example of valid reasoning, thus it is an example of logic. The conclusion of a valid argument from analogy doesn't constitute a "logical truth", but that doesn't mean that the argument is illogical.
Lets look at your reasoning. You use the precondition "In chess, the concept of a forfeit is when someone can not or will not move".
No, not true, obviously. Where did you pick up this "concept of a forfeit in chess"?
Yes, true, obviously. It is not only the concept of forfeit in chess, but a virtually universal concepts in games/sports in general. There is only one relevant distinction between someone who has abandoned or effectively abandoned a game, and someone who has not abandoned or effectively abandoned the game, and that distinction is that the latter is making his moves while the former isn't. This applies to all cases of forfeit in chess; i.e., whether they ran out of time, didn't show up, or resigned, they are not making a move, nor will they ever, thus it is considered a forfeit. Stalemate fits this concept of forfeit perfectly.
Precondition wrong -> no valid reasoning.
In reality, valid reasoning can proceed from a false precondition or premise, though the conclusion will be wrong. However, you have not established a false precondition here.
The logic is that ultimately one has to checkmate the opponent, in order to win.
You can also win if your opponent forfeits.
Why does logic say it's a forfeit?
I've already answered that question in a previous post.
You can't force your opponent to forfeit, it has to be their choice. Checkmate has been the way of ending the game for centuries...imagine winning and saying "Stalemate! I win!" Might as well get rid of en passant, and the 50 move rule, and every other rule that you don't like. There is absolutely NOTHING contradictory in the game of chess. It is a game so flawless and beautiful that it has been adopted by kings and queens themselves long before theory was around. Its senseless to change such a major rule in chess because you are trying to be a hipster and think it just needs to change. You don't deserve the win if you can't mate your opponent. In a KP+K ending, if your opponent is skilled enough to force a Stalemate, they should not lose. Why are you trying to demolish years and years of endgame theory?
There is no forfeit in chess. All your argument is built around the thing that doesn't exist.
Every rule in chess is arbitrary.
Arbitrary is only an issue if it creates an inconsistency. The moves assigned to all of the pieces are abitrary for example, but that's part of the premise of the game. With the stalemate = draw rule, the concept of a forfeit is applied inconsistently. On the one hand, someone who can't move loses, and on the other hand, someone who can't move draws.
Logic is irrelevant here.
Obviously not, given that the logic of the stalemate rule is the point of contention.
Set of rules has to be consistent and unambiguous and this is the case with chess rules
You could say that the stalemate rule is consistently inconsistent, so from that perspective, the rule works. It is like if I watch a movie with a plot hole. The plot hole represents an internal inconsistency, but no matter how many times I watch it, the plot hole is consistently there.
It simply comes down to one thing: A player cannot be compelled to make an illegal move.
Both "Stalemate" and "Checkmate" compel a player to make an illegal move. The difference is between attacking a player while doing this or not. It seems trivial.