Why stalemate should be a win.

There are 5 ways (based on a few seconds worth of thought!) for a game to end in a draw.  None of them is 'logical', they just are what they are.

As for the argument that any rule that reduces the number of draws in top level chess is good for the game...how many "top level" games end in stalemate?  For a game to end in stalemate requires incompetence on behalf of one player normally, with the exception of overlooking crazy manouvres where the opponent manages to sac all their remaining pieces with their king unable to move.  I can't remember a top level game that ended in stalemate even though I'm sure there will be a handful.

Your baseless, inept, and irrelevant editorial is dismissed, though the psychobabble and amateur psychoanalysis parts are comical.

Lets make the 50 move rule the 67 move rule because 67 is my favorite number.

This reminds me of the discussion about the first year of the millenium...

The difference is that in case of forfeit (because of player being absent or out of time) the position on board has possible legal moves. What is forfeit is defined by rules of specific game and not derived from some "fundamental" principle.

Forfeit - something that is lost or given up as punishment or because of a rule or law (Merriam-Webster)

You don't know what the concept of "forfeit" is? Is English your native language? If you're consulting the dictionary to try to understand a concept which most any native English speaker understands by the age of about 4, then you're not likely to get it. By the way, a dictionary is not a language usage guide.

Wasn't it you who proclaimed that forfeits don't even exist in chess? It would seem that you really don't understand the concept of a forfeit, and probably shouldn't be trying to argue about it. Any game or sport is inherently forfeited if a player or team can't or won't play, unless there is some agreement otherwise (such as to postpone the game to a later date). Misconduct can be another cause for forfeit.

I couldn't find any definition of cometition that mentions elimination as basic concept. Are you making things up again?

Are you playing dumb with the English language again, or are you just not particularly familiar with it? The point of any competition is to defeat your opponent(s), and the ultimate form of defeat is to completely eliminate them from the game, if it can be done with a legal move/play. This is why e.g., a knockout in boxing is the most decisive form of victory, trumping the points scoring system. This is why bankrupting someone in Monopoly is the most decisive form of victory, as opposed to deciding to end the game after a certain amount of time and counting up each players' assets to determine the winner. The examples are practically endless.

This is just your personal perception, not really an argument.

No, the "stalemate = draw" rule is in fact at odds with the fundamental concept of competition. As far as "comically" goes, it falls under the category of situational irony, which is a universally recognized source of humor, so that isn't "just my personal perception" either.

See above about definition of forfeit.

See above, yourself.

(Just your personal perception again)

No, not "just my personal perception", and not "again" (given that your claim was wrong the first time too). A ludicrous situation constitutes a farce, and a situation in which Player A so thoroughly trounces Player B that Player B is forcibly elimated from the game, and then player A and player B are said to have drawn/tied, is a ludicrous situation (due to the drastically contradictory/conflicting concepts being conflated, i.e., the concept of defeat and the concept of a draw/tie), thus a farce.

Could be but that's irrelevant.

It wasn't meant to be relevent.

Then I don't understand what exactly you are arguing for? What does "should be" in the topic title means?

Ask the OP. I didn't start this thread, which means I didn't create the topic title. I've been arguing about the logic of the stalemate = draw rule.

The difference is that in case of forfeit (because of player being absent or out of time) the position on board has possible legal moves. What is forfeit is defined by rules of specific game and not derived from some "fundamental" principle.

And when the rules of the specific game are at odds with the fundamental concept being invoked, you have an illogical rule. The rule could be rewritten to say that checkmate is a draw too, but it wouldn't change the fact that logically, checkmate is a win. In the case of checkmate, logic and the current rules agree. In the case of stalemate, logic and the current rules disagree.

And in the event of a time forfeit, the player who ran out of time has no legal moves, regardless of what the position on the board is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but MaximRecoil is under the impression that if a person cannot continue, then he should lose, and this makes sense based on the current rules ?

I'm not under any "impression". I'm stating, flat out, as a fact, that if a player can not continue (or will not continue; makes no difference because the effect of not continuing is the same either way), then, logically speaking, he loses by default (forfeit).

Ok, MaximRecoil, I guess you are trolling, because all the rules are not determined by whether or not a player can continue. Reasonable effort at hijacking a thread though.

think of stalemate like this. 

"mr.President, we have surounded bin laden We cant kill him, but he cant leave his crib". Now is this a win?

Not if Zulu beams him up.

MaximRecoil, you failed to provide any references about "fundamental concept" of forfeit and "basic concept" of competition. Few examples (boxing, Monopoly) don't prove existence of something fundamental or basic. As I suspected you are making things up.

Yes I was wrong claiming that there is no forfeit in chess but I've checked FIDE laws of chess and other sources and corrected myself. No shame I guess.

English is not my native language. However language usage has nothing to do with chess rules - they can be expressed in any language. They even can be formalized and programmed for computer. And computer will have no problem to distinguish between forfeit and stalemate.

You write: "The rule could be rewritten to say that checkmate is a draw too, but it wouldn't change the fact that logically, checkmate is a win." Well that will be just another chess variant - neither more nor less logicall than normal chess.  If you are so weak in logic may be you should not use the word so often.

The fundamental concept of competition has nothing to do with chess specifically; it is a concept inherent to all competitive games/sports. Therefore, the specific object of the game of chess is irrelevant to my statement.

If you fail to do so in spite of overwhelming material superiority, you have not met the aim of the competition. How this is somehow at odds with some imaginary "fundamental concept" needs to be explained in far greater detail than this offhand comment.

It was explained in far greater detail (not that it needed to be), in posts 257 and 266; it wasn't just one "offhand comment".

In fact, it can be strongly argued that stalemate as a draw enhances competition in chess. If stalemate were a loss for the side stalemated, the game would be less competetive by an order of magnitude.

You're not even on the same page here. The fundamental concept of competition is to defeat your opponent. The ultimate / most decisive form of defeat is to eliminate your opponent(s) from the game entirely. This is what happens in a stalemate; i.e., the opponent is so thoroughly trounced that he has no legal moves available, thus he's been eliminated from the game. To then say this is a tie is at odds with the fundamental concept of competition. It is also at odds with the fundamental concept of defeat, and it is at odds with the fundamental concept of forfeit. This makes the "stalemate = draw" rule a farce.

Except that's not at all logical.

I've already explained why it is, multiple times, thus your mere gainsaying is dismissed.

Iluvsmetuna

It's been quite obvious for some time. Don't worry though, just sit back and enjoy the show.

Any situation can be assessed from a logical perspective. And it may come as a shock to you, but something can both be the object of a game and be logical at the same time. On the other hand, something can be the object of a game and be illogical at the same time.

If the object in football is to outscore the opponent over the time period of one game, then the team that meets the objective wins.

That objective also happens to be logical, because a higher score suggests a higher degree of performance/skill. On the other hand, if the object of the game was to score the least amount of points over the time period of one game, that would be illogical, given that it would be at odds with the concept of competition, performance/skill, etc. Every game would end in a tie, because both teams would just sit there and do nothing.

It is entirely possible for one team to be outplayed for the entire game on the football pitch, but through fortune or awe-inspiring resourcefullness, to hold the opponent to a draw. I don't see how that violates any "fundamental concept of competition."

You're still not even on the right page. If you want a valid analogy with stalemate, suppose that every player on one team got injured during the course of the game, through entirely fair/legal hits, and they were unable to continue. This would obviously be a forfeit; a loss for the team that can not continue to play. If it was determined to be a draw, that would be illogical.

Logic. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

^^^ Comical Irony Alert ^^^

{ owltuna wrote:

Iluvsmetuna wrote:

Not if Zulu beams him up.

Zulu? As in the Michael Caine movie? }

Oh yeah, that guy was called Sulu, first name Hikaru!

Actually I think it was Scotty did the beaming!

Enough said from me.

From logical perspective chess rules have no contradictions and hence there is nothing illogical. If we declare checkmate a draw or a loss there is no contradiction neither and nothing illogical. Ever heard about Suicide Chess? It is a chess variant in which the objective of each player is to lose all of his pieces or be stalemated. Nothing illogical. There exists no fundamental principle that can be used to validate rules of game. Any set of arbitrary rules is fine as long as there are no contradictions within the rules. The resulting game might be no fun to play. It can be non-competitive game but there are plenty of those. From logical perspective it's all fine.

Please explain me how "elimination vs other kinds of win" applies to following sports/games: football, hockey, running, tic-tac-toe, swimming, tennis, badminton, figure skating, biathlon, sailing, skiing, sledding etc.