The game can also end (with a winner and loser) by forfeit. A stalemate is logically a forfeit.
No, a forfiet is when a team, or player for chess does not turn up. The game has ended, extending it and then proclaiming this in anyway logical is flawed.
End of markII.
Yep. Once a game is over (as in stalemate or checkmate), there can no longer be a forfeit.
It's best to just let this thread die.
You draw by forfeit.
Just the fact that the word forfeit exists and it is not specific to chess, and it is applied in a very consistent manner in sports and games, proves that a fundamental concept of "forfeit" exists. Also, something being a forfeit according to specific rules, and something being logically a forfeit, are not necessarily the same thing. A logical game designer would specify a forfeit in his rules in the event of anything which fits the long-established concept of a forfeit. To do otherwise is like referring to white game pieces as "black" in the rules; it would be at odds with the already well-established concepts of "white" and "black".
So the rules could say, "Black always moves first," and when the game designer sees people with black pieces moving first, he points to the white pieces and says, "No, black moves first".
You don't seem to understand the difference between universal concepts and internal concepts. Forfeit is a universal concept, and any scenario which fits that concept is logically a forfeit.
Wrong again. It will be chess variant with its own premises. Nothing illogical/inconsistent.
No; if all you do is change the rule of chess to checkmate being a draw or win for the checkmated player, you have a rule which is at odds with the premise of chess.
Same like suicide chess.
For suicide chess, a lot is changed in order to have a consistent premise, it is not just a change of the checkmate rule.
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.
See above.
"Fundamental/universal concepts" - give me some source that defines them - encyclopedia, dictionary - anything. It can't be that they exist and are not described anywhere.
Absurd. To find out what a universal concept is, first find out what "universal" means, and then find out what "concept" means. You won't find "big red dog" or "shiny black car" in a dictionary or encyclopedia either. Some examples of universal concepts include win, lose, draw, compete, forfeit, luck, cheat, etc.
Logical assessment tells that there is no contradiction in chess rules.
The concept of "forfeit" is applied inconsistently in the game of chess.
See above.
See above, yourself.
So in all the examples above this "ultimate form of defeat" doesn't exist. We are talking about a single game not about tournment. If elimination doesn't exist in so many sports/games we can't call it "basic concept" of competition that is universally applicable. This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition doesn't mention "elimination" even once. Like I've said - you are making things up.
That some games/sports don't incorporate elimation is utterly irrelevant to the fact that elimation of your opponent is the most decisive form of defeat possible. A game could be designed which doesn't even allow for a clear winner, but that changes nothing about the fact that certain methods of determining a winner exist, and some are more decisive/unambiguous than others.
Ironically, the rules of chess do allow for a legal move to completely eliminate your opponent from the game, but then it goes on to farcically label this event as a "draw". It would be like if the rules of boxing were rewritten so that a knockout resulting from a legal blow = a draw.
And it is of no consequence what a person, who clearly has a tenuous grasp of the English language, thinks I'm "making up".
No, a forfiet is when a team, or player for chess does not turn up. The game has ended, extending it and then proclaiming this in anyway logical is flawed.
Say what? The forfeit is the loss, i.e., it is what a specific type of loss is called; it is the name of the result, like "win", "lose", or "draw". If you tell someone, "If you don't show up you will forfeit the game," it means they will lose the game as a penalty for not showing up. The same applies to when someone forfeits their property to the bank, i.e., they lose their property as a penalty for not paying their debt.
Yep. Once a game is over (as in stalemate or checkmate), there can no longer be a forfeit.
You don't know what you're talking about. First the game must end before the results can be determined. In chess and many/most other games, the results can be win, lose, draw, or forfeit (forfeit being a specific type of loss).
If you smurf it, does that count as a forfeit ?
You don't know what you're talking about. First the game must end before the results can be determined. In chess and many/most other games, the results can be win, lose, draw, or forfeit (forfeit being a specific type of loss).
If there is a stalemate the game has ended. And the result is a draw.
It's you that doesn't know what you're talking about.
You can't forfeit if the game is over.
No, the game ends in a draw. You then try to figure out how to split the point.
You don't know what you're talking about. First the game must end before the results can be determined. In chess and many/most other games, the results can be win, lose, draw, or forfeit (forfeit being a specific type of loss).
If there is a stalemate the game has ended. And the result is a draw.
The current rules are not in question here, obviously. Logically, the result is a forfeit.
It's you that doesn't know what you're talking about.
Obviously not, given that you just tried to refute a claim that I never made, and before that you claimed that "once a game is over there can no longer be a forfeit", in spite of the fact that there can be a forfeit only after the game is over (which is exactly the opposite of your false claim), given that a forfeit is a name given to a specific type of final result, and a final result inherently can not be determined until after the game is over.
If my opponent pulls a gun on me during the game, is that a draw ?
You don't know what you're talking about. First the game must end before the results can be determined. In chess and many/most other games, the results can be win, lose, draw, or forfeit (forfeit being a specific type of loss).
If there is a stalemate the game has ended. And the result is a draw.
The current rules are not in question here, obviously. Logically, the result is forfeit.
It's you that doesn't know what you're talking about.
Obviously not, given that you just tried to refute a claim that I never made, and before that you claimed that "once a game is over there can no longer be a forfeit", in spite of the fact that there can be a forfeit only after the game is over (which is exactly the opposite of your false claim), given that a forfeit is a final result, and a final result inherently can not be determined until after the game is over.
A forfeit is an action. The results available are win, loss, draw.
Do you even play chess?
A forfeit is an action not a result. You're wrong again.
Forfeit means to lose something as a penalty for e.g., not holding up your end of a bargain. In other words, forfeit is the name given to a specific type of loss. In a game, a loss is a result, period. Final results can only be determined after a game has ended.
In the case of someone getting up and leaving in the middle of a game, never to return, first the game is declared to be over, because one of the players can no longer make any moves, then the result is decided. The result can not be decided until the game is over. In this case, the result would be called "forfeit".
Forfeit can be used as a verb, just like "win" or "lose" can be used as a verb:
"He is expected to win the game."
"He is expected to lose the game."
"He is expected to forfeit the game."
But that doesn't change the fact that those words are also the names of final results: "win", "loss", "forfeit". Final results can only be determined after the game is over.
Best arguments in a while
Turn on your room light.
This way the nurse will know its time for your medication.
^^^ Peanut Gallery Alert ^^^
A forfeit is an action not a result. You're wrong again.
Forfeit means to lose something as a penalty for e.g., not holding up your end of a bargain. In other words, forfeit is the name given to a specific type of loss. In a game, a loss is a result, period. Final results can only be determined after a game has ended.
In the case of someone getting up and leaving in the middle of a game, never to return, first the game is declared to be over, because one of the players can no longer make any moves, then the result is decided. The result can not be decided until the game is over. In this case, the result would be called "forfeit".
Forfeit can be used as a verb, just like "win" or "lose" can be used as a verb:
"He is expected to win the game."
"He is expected to lose the game."
"He is expected to forfeit the game."
But that doesn't change the fact that those words are also the names of final results: "win", "loss", "forfeit". Final results can only be determined after the game is over.
Therefore stalemate can't be a forfeit.
Therefore stalemate can't be a forfeit.
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
You said all As are Bs. C isn't a B.
I simply said that C can't be an A. That isn't a non sequitur.
Therefore stalemate can't be a forfeit.
In some countries before it was codified as a draw, a stalemate was considered a WIN for the player being stalemated.
This was under the reasoning that the game requires an alternation of turns (until draw or king capture) and one player preventing the other from moving at all was a violation of those rules. So that player loses as a penalty, much like the modern concept of a forfeit.
But do you even play chess, bro?