Why stalemate should be a win.

How do you decide if an anology is valid? To decide that, you already need to know that the argument in question holds in both the context of your original proposition and the context of the anology.

Anologies are not, have never been and will never be valid reasoning. They can just help you understand a point, not proof it.

Your notion of logic is too far away from mine (and many others, including mathematical and philosophical logicians) to have a fruitful discussion. We are talking about two totally different things using the same name for both (I don't think it's a foreign language issue). Let's stop now .

That being said: I like the concept of stalemate.

The creators of the game most likely implimented the rule to give the game more complexity. Its no fun when you're down a pawn and you have no drawing chances. A skilled player should be able to draw the game, you should have to prove you can win, not just get a pawn up advantage, trade pieces, and win automatically due to no stalemate.

If one has no legal moves the game is over immediately. I don't see any inconsistency. It's no more arbitrary than checkmate rule.

Sorry I was wrong: forfeit - refers to losing the game by absence or by exceeding the time control (forfeit on time). (from Glossary of chess in Wikipedia)

Obviously it has nothing to do with game that has ended in stalemate.

@MaximRecoil: So when you say "inconsistency", you do not mean "logical inconsistency" as probably defined in any arbitrary book on logic, but you just mean "the concept is applied in some situations, but not all"?

Yes. All threads on this topic (and they are legion) are, though not all are elaborate. Fell free to co-troll.

Yes. Meanwhile (at least until MaximRecoil corrects me) I came to the conclusion (by using common sense and intuition, not logic) that this "...has nothing to do with game that has ended in stalemate" is somehow MR's point (this consistency thing, you know).

So you believe that someone who runs out of time chose to "time forfeit"?

Checkmate has been the way of ending the game for centuries...

So has forfeit.

There is absolutely NOTHING contradictory in the game of chess.

Yes there is, as I've already explained multiple times.

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.

A "hipster"? How's the weather out there in left field? I've only ever liked mainstream music, mainstream movies, and mostly mainstream products in general, so I suppose your "theory" needs a little work.

Also, this calls your reading skills into question, given that I've already said that I don't care whether the stalemate rule changes or not.

You don't deserve the win if you can't mate your opponent.

People can and do win in chess due to their opponent forfeiting (which means no checkmate, obviously) whether they "deserve" it or not.

In a KP+K ending, if your opponent is skilled enough to force a Stalemate, they should not lose.

Skilled enough to eliminate all of their legal moves? It only takes skill because the other player doesn't want it to happen, and that's only because of the illogical rule that says it is a draw. If the rules said it was a loss for the stalemated player, it would simply turn the skill the other way around, like in suicide chess vs. regular chess. It takes no skill to give away your pieces, until the other player doesn't want you to.

Why are you trying to demolish years and years of endgame theory?

Again with your reading skills. Your wild idea that I want to change anything is solely a product of your imagination; it doesn't follow from anything I've typed in this thread.

Chess rules define these 2 situations:

1) Player has no legal move. His king is in check. The game ends immediately. It's a loss for him.

2) Player has no legal move. His king is not in check. The game ends immediately. It's a draw.

I don't see any reason to claim that 2) is less logical, less consistent, more arbitrary than 1).

Ok but the Stalemate rule is not ancient, it's been changed within the "modern" chess era, 1800's ect. Early 1900's there was a big discussion to change the Stalemate rule with notable players weighing in on the discussion. Wasn't changed however. I think endgames would be simplified and a lot more decisive games resulting, not necessarily as you claim, but that's kind of the point most make who advocate to change the rule, to reduce the drawing potential in Chess. Chess has been changed throughout it's history,taking the tone and reasoning you are is a bit superficial in my opinion. Chess would still be very complex without the Stalemate rule in my opinion. Not that it should be changed...

Time isn't even a rule of chess, people choose to play with clocks, but when the game is played its not always played with a clock, so time is silly to use as a "forfeit"..its not contradictory. This reminds me of how certain conspiracy theorists try and rationalize their fear of things that don't exist, which is what you're trying to do. You're making an argument against the contradictions that don't exist. And actually it does take skill to eliminate your moves, have you ever had a stalemate motiff in your games? Purposely sacrificing material for stalemate? Its pretty neat actually and adds complexity to chess. Being up pawns shouldn't lead to a win, that makes chess too materialistic, its supposed to be more about strategy, and winning despite a material advantage or disadvantage. If the stalemate rule is abolished, this means winning material from your opponent is pretty much resignable in the endgame, since if you're up a pawn, and your opponent can't be stalemated, its a forced win. Sounds unappealing. I'd still play chess, but it would leave a sour taste in my mouth knowing that the game is being toyed with.

Stalemate is a very good rule when you are low rated, but may be extremely embarrassing if playing in front of a crowd and you are the one who stalemated your opponent, while cruising to what looked like an obvious victory.

Chess hasn't been changed for almost 200 years or so. All the modern chess players that you know have been playing with the stalemate rule. If you change it, you will no longer be able to compare chessplayers from the past to the future...

You can't do that anyway, without a load of trolling going on.

The creators of the game didn't implement the rule. It has only been a universal rule since the 19th century. Prior to that, the stalemated player lost in most parts of the world.

uri65

I've already explained why it is inconsistent. It is also at odds with the near universal concept of forfeit.

By the way, can you name an example from any other competitive game or sport where a player who has been eliminated from play, automatically draws/ties with the player who eliminated him via a legal move/play? I doubt you'll find many such examples, because the very concept is utterly absurd.

ah I see. But the point of chess is to checkmate your opponent unless you win on time. The only way to win over the board is checkmate or resignation, the time is not always a factor in chess, example casual games. Its like if two rams are locked on a bridge horn to horn and neither one can move, we call it a stalemate since nobody can move. One the otherhand if One of the rams gets his horn stuck in the other ram's chest, the other ram won't move because he's dead, and the ram that stabbed him with his horn won't need to make a move due to his opposing ram already being dead. 

A summary of a rule is not "incorrect" simply because it is not exhaustive.

Likewise if you fail to checkmate someone and instead allow a stalemate, that is your own fault and you should never be rewarded for that failure.

Except, both players are already rewarded with a half point. Of course, logically, the stalemated player has forfeited, thus lost, the game.

Now of course you can reply with green text

The purpose of the green text is to delineate between quoted text and reply text. This workaround is due to this forum's software having a terrible quote function. For example, standard BBCode which works in nearly all internet forums, doesn't work here:

[quote]Quoted text[/quote]

As far as I can tell, the only way to implement the quote function here is to click on "Quote" when you reply, which doesn't allow for multiple quotes in the same post unless you go all around Robin Hood's barn to accomplish it, which I did a couple of times, and then said screw that.

and try to pretend to be 'Data' from Star Trek in your rationale for debating this

"'Data' from Star Trek"? Is the view pretty good from out there in deep, deep left field?

but the fact remains you will NEVER see this rule changed in FIDE.

More from the deepest, darkest corner of left field. Not only have I not said anything at all about wanting to see the rule changed, I specifically said that I don't care either way.

The rest of your editorial is irrelevant.

Sorry I've probably missed your explanation why it's inconsistent - can you repeat it please?

"Near universal concept of forfeit" has nothing to do with stalemate.

Other games/sports are irrelevant. And why should different games be alike?

Games are played for pleasure. That's the only thing that matters. I enjoy chess as it is and have to intention to switch to variant with stalemate as win. I think 99% of players fel the same. Your argument can't win.

Because the concept of forfeit is inconsistently applied.

"Near universal concept of forfeit" has nothing to do with stalemate.

Yes, it does, given that the concept of forfeit exactly matches the conditions of a "stalemate".

Other games/sports are irrelevant. And why should different games be alike?

So you don't know of any other examples? That's okay, I don't either. And competitive games/sports are alike in at least one area, i.e., the concept of competition. The most basic concept of competition is to eliminate your opponent from the game using legal moves/plays. The "stalemate = draw" rule in chess is comically at odds with this fundamental concept, as well as being at odds with equally fundamental concept of "forfeit". The current stalemate rule is a farce. I wouldn't be surprised if the original idea for a stalemate being a draw was a joke, and then some people unwittingly took it seriously.

Games are played for pleasure. That's the only thing that matters. I enjoy chess as it is and have to intention to switch to variant with stalemate as win. I think 99% of players fel the same. Your argument can't win.

My argument is especially easy to win when arguing against people who think my argument has anything to do with trying to change the rule or how a rule change would affect the game, or whether or not people want the rule to change. In fact, it wins itself, because those people are posting non sequiturs.