Why stalemate should be a win.

*professor begins lecture* "Write this down class if a then b, and if c then d."

*MaxR confidently raises hand* "Professor that's illogical. If a then b, then it's only logical that if c then b as well!"

*professor chimes in* "the statements don't build on each other max, they are completely arbitrary.."

*max* "Professor please don't embarrass yourself. The logic is obvious. a and c are two cases of the exact same thing, a variable being true. they are only two letters apart in the alphabet, the difference is negligible. If c is true then b, not d, is the logical result."

*professor* "..."

You have established no such thing.

1) You keep invoking "forfeit," when forfeit has nothing to do with it. Forfeit is not showing up to the game, or running out of time. Stalemate is one means of preventing the other side from achieving the object of the game.

Forfeit has to do with anything which fits the concept of forfeit, obviously. Even if the rules of [tournament] chess, or any other game or sport, said nothing at all about any kind of forfeit, there would still be situations which would logically be a forfeit. For example, in cases where someone doesn't show up for a game they agreed to play, it is logically a forfeit, no matter what game it is. The same applies to someone who leaves in the middle of the game, any game, and doesn't return. "Forfeit" is a ~universal concept, like the words "quit", "lose", or "win", "poor sportsmanship", "performance", "competition", and so on. The rules don't have to specifically mention such concepts in order for them to logically apply to certain situations. I could make a game and write rules which say, "If someone decides to quit during the game, he wins!" Of course, that would be illogical and absurd, and it wouldn't change the fact that the person who quit has logically forfeited the game, and thus lost.

2) "A higher score suggests a higher degree of performance." It may so suggest, but as any sports fan knows, this is not a rule. Many times the under-performing side draws or even wins.

What of it?

3) "Any situation can be assessed from a logical perspective." Go ahead and use all the "logic" you want, it doesn't mean beans if your premises are garbage, which they are.

Again, you have established no such thing. All you have established is that you're oblivious to how various fundamental/universal concepts logically apply to various situations in life. Based on this, if someone said, "That was a great performance," with regard to a chess player's gameplay, you could be expected to say something like, "'Great performance'? That term isn't specified in the rules of chess, therefore it can't possibly have anything to do with what happened here."

"Forfeit" logically applies to any situation which fits the concept, no matter what the specific game/sport/event is. Even if it is something as informal as a children's game of "tag", if a player e.g., quits in the middle of the game, he has logically forfeited the game.

sisu

uri65

You've just established your own inability to understand logic, given your laughably false analogy here. Well done, simple fellow.

For example, you see someone post:

"Two plus two equals four."

You chuckle to yourself, because you unwittingly think this is wrong. So you concoct a ham-fisted "analogy" involving a student and a math professor, with the student getting math problems wrong, utterly oblivious to the fact that you are establishing yourself as an idiot in the process.

MaximRecoil, I've been trying to understand your argument here, but I have not been able to find the bit where you claim to have logically proven that stalemate is a forfeit. You have claimed several times that you've done so, but after reading the almost 300 responses I have not been able to find it. 

My understanding of your argument is this:

Premise 1: When a player is stalemated he/she is unable to make a legal move.

Premise 2: A player who is unable or unwilling to make a move forfeits.

Conclusion: Stalemate is logically a form of forfeit.  

Is this the argument you are making? If not, I would like to hear what your argument is. I see you claim to use logic, but it is rather unpleasant to dig through your walls of text when it should be so much easier for you to just express your argument in a proper logical structure and be done with it. 

Correct.

You mean that in this situation white has won, because black forfeited?

Every chess player making the move Qf7 will experience this as a huge mistake. White has not made the best move possible, hence white should not be rewarded for his mistake. To reward someone form making such an obvious mistake (I have done it once) is unjustifiable.

When things are unjustifiable logic is imho not important anymore. Can you show us a stalemate position or a combination ending in stalemate that is more illogical than unjustifiable?

Well, changing premise 2 to "A situation in which a player is unable or unwilling to make a move fits the concept of a forfeit" breaks the whole argument. 

In your revised version the conclusion should be something like "stalemate fits concept of forfeit", which is unnecessarily unclear and the inclusion of the word "concept" is problematic considering the multiple meanings and weight that the word carries within logic and philosophy.  

New revised version:

Premise 1: When a player is stalemated he/she is unable to make a legal move.

Premise 2: A situation in which a player is unable or unwilling to make a move is a forfeit.  

Conclusion: Stalemate is logically a form of forfeit. 

EDIT:

Do you agree or are you unwilling to agree with the second premise? 

 2+2 = 4 only when working with base 5 and up, so in your response analogy I'm not necessarily wrong :). Regardless take it easy, this is a thread about the logical consistency of stalemate after all. Have you considered debating the en passant rule?

Logically, yes. According to the current rules, no.

Every chess player making the move Qf7 will experience this as a huge mistake. White has not made the best move possible, hence white should not be rewarded for his mistake. To reward someone form making such an obvious mistake (I have done it once) is unjustifiable.

It is only a mistake because of the illogical current rule. The same move would have been fine in the 19th century before the current rule, because it would have been a win. And if you look at it from the perspective of what is implied by the move, the end result of a stalemate would be the same as a checkmate anyway, i.e., the king would inevitably be captured on its next move.

By the way, white does get "rewarded for his mistake" under the current rules, as does black; they are rewarded equally with a draw (1/2 point each), even though white has made a legal move on every turn and black has been eliminated from the game. I bet you'd have to search far and wide to find someone who doesn't think the "stalemate = draw" rule is nonsensical when they first learn of it, because it is blatantly a farce. There should be a Monty Python skit about it.

Im curious how do you feel about the interpretation "when a player is unable or unwilling to make a move the game reaches a conclusion" rather than the player unable/unwilling to move being tacked with the loss? That seems to be the current interpretation the rules of chess use. You might say that a draw offer is covered under a player not being willing to make a move, would you consider that refuting your premise? Or is the fact they both agreed to it a key difference in your eyes.

No, it doesn't (see below).

In your revised version the conclusion should be something like "stalemate fits concept of forfeit",

No, the conclusion is fine as written. Anything which fits a concept, logically is a form of that concept. For example, if the concept is "theft", then any situation which fits that concept (taking possession of something which doesn't belong to you without permission from the rightful owner) is inherently a form of theft.

As a side note, this is where the anti-piracy groups fail when they say that unauthorized copying of e.g., music, movies, software, etc., is a form of theft, because it is missing a key ingredient in the concept of theft, i.e., the rightful owner no longer possessing the stolen item. What is actually happening is: suppose you invent a Star Trek type "replicator", and you go to the mall parking lot and replicate someone's car and drive away with it. Have you stolen that guy's car? No, you haven't stolen his car, because he still has his car, and that simple fact would end any police stolen car investigation immediately. Has he or the manufacturer of his car lost the chance to sell you his car? Maybe, but that is an entirely different matter.

which is unnecessarily unclear and the inclusion of the word "concept" is problematic considering the multiple meanings and weight that the word carries within logic and philosophy. 

"Concept" is the correct word to use, as it encompasses the idea of something and the way the term which denotes said something is applied in real-life language (vernacular).

New revised version:

Premise 1: When a player is stalemated he/she is unable to make a legal move.

Premise 2: A situation in which a player is unable or unwilling to make a move is a forfeit.  

Conclusion: Stalemate is logically a form of forfeit. 

That's just an alternate way of saying what I already said, but my wording is more specific, i.e., it includes the reason why such a thing is a forfeit: because it fits the concept of a forfeit. That reason should go without saying, but I'd rather include it anyway.

Also, I'm not concerned about someone arguing about what exactly the concept of a forfeit is. I know what the concept of a forfeit is, and so does pretty much everyone else, and anyone who would try such a "tactic" is clearly desperate. No matter how you word it (including the way you worded it), it is open to a ridiculous argument over what "forfeit" means.

Rogue_King

Anything that fits the concept of a rule, is a rule. Get over it.

There's no logical contradiction in the rule of stalemate. The fact that you think that not being able to move should be a loss is irrelevant. Stop calling it illogical. It's not.

That's not only obvious, but it is also not a point of contention. Thanks for "sharing" though.

Get over it.

"Get over" that random and obvious bit of uncontested "info" that you decided to post? Okay.

There's no logical contradiction in the rule of stalemate. The fact that you think that not being able to move should be a loss is irrelevant.

It is illogical, so much so that it is farcical, for various reasons which I've already pointed out.

Stop calling it illogical. It's not.

Your demand and assertion is noted, and dismissed.

Not being able to move being a forfeit in other games is also irrelevant and doesn't make the rule illogical.

Do you even play chess?

SO, you are in your opinion just making it needlessly complicated by saying "fits the concept of forfeit" instead of "is a forfeit"? If you do not intend a difference in meaning then why make it more difficult than it needs to be? 

When I asked you if I had understood your argument correctly you specifically changed that part of it, so I assumed there was some meaning to it. 

The game ends only two ways;

1. A draw, stalemate or insufficent material and

2. A win, which is a checkmate, think of this as the winner has captured the king, as in I can see you directly and you cannot move out of my side's view.

The game cannot continue to a death.

End of.

It is true however, that the rules of a game are not always easily understood by everyone.

Being unable or unwilling to play a game you've started or agreed to play is the fundamental concept of a forfeit in general, which means that a stalemate is logically a forfeit, regardless of what the rules say.

The rule is illogical for various reasons. For one, it is at odds with the concept of "equality". In a stalemate, one player has been elimated from the game by the opponent's power/force, and obviously has zero remaining usable power/force. The results are obviously not equal, nor even close to equal. One side is dead, killed by the other side. It is about the farthest thing from equal that one could imagine. Hower, the result is ruled a draw (equal). This is farcical in and of itself, and would make a good basis for a Monty Python skit.

The rule is also at odds with the concept of competition; i.e., under the general concept of competition, elimination of your opponent from the game is the ultimate / most decisive form of defeat. In the event of an elimination from the game, there is no question of defeat; no wondering about whether or not the player might have made a comeback had the game gone on longer, etc.; because the player is simply gone; nothing left; utterly trounced; annihilated, etc.

The rule is at odds with the basic concept of chess itself (which is probably why it has only been a universal part of chess for a relatively short time), which is to [implicitly] capture the enemy king.

Valid reasoning (logic) did not lead to the idea of a stalemate being a draw; the rule is completely arbitrary, and illogical.

Do you even play chess?

LOL! I guess this a chess forum version of that bodybuilder forum meme: "Do you even lift?"

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/do-you-even-lift

I changed it because "goes without saying" only applies when you are among people who understand logic (which is where the phrase "should go without saying"). However, here in this thread, plenty of people have posted who do not have much of a grasp of logic. So something that should go without saying, doesn't go without saying, from the perspective of people who "can't put two and two together", so to speak.

king2queensside