Why stalemate should be a win.

Well let's see...

Concept : something conceived in the mind, an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances (Merriam-Webster).

I don't know any example of game where situation of "no legal moves" is called a forfeit. Do you? It is not possible to generalize a concept from zero instances. Hence "forfeit concept" (whatever that means) doesn't apply to stalemate situation.
Same goes for "elimination instance" - it's not applicable.

Yet another question is whether specific rules and definitions take precedence over general ones. Usually they do. For example "white" pieces in chess are almost never "white" in general sense. Mostly they are yellowish, but can be red or green as well. We call them "white" and it doesn't feel like a farce, does it?

Whatever your point of view, arguing the merits on "logic" is beside the point. It's just a rule, if you want to make stalemate a loss it's just a rule change, nothing more or less than that.

From the POV of public interest, anything in top flight chess which reduces draws would likely improve said public interest, and that would be a positive for the game's future.   

Owltuna says:

"One idea you've failed to address in rebuttal is the concept of competition. Changing the rule and making stalemate a win/loss situation lessens the level of competition, severely so. Why do you want to do that?"

------------------

Not quite sure I follow? I would think the opposite is more likely. More players would fight on if they thought stalemate would lead to a win instead of a draw. How do you conclude it would lead to a lessening of competition?

Wow, thread still producing lots of traffic. Do we meanwhile have an answer why MaximRecoil thinks that the "concept of forfeit" should rule the world of chess rules with an iron hand?

I said no such thing, and your non sequitur remains dismissed.

rdecredico

Seriously dude, your head is in your duodenum.

Go back up the basement stairs and tell Mom that your interweb friends are not accepting your delusions and ask her what she thinks you should do.  

When she tells you to seek help, take her advice.

When you lack the mental horsepower to argue, throw paper cups from the sidelines instead. LOL @ that, and LOL @ you too, you know, while I'm at it.

uri65

Well let's see...

Concept : something conceived in the mind, an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances (Merriam-Webster).

I don't know any example of game where situation of "no legal moves" is called a forfeit. Do you? It is not possible to generalize a concept from zero instances. Hence "forfeit concept" (whatever that means) doesn't apply to stalemate situation.

Forfeits in games all have one thing in common, i.e., the game ends because a player/team is unable or unwilling to play. This is the concept of a forfeit. In a stalemate the game ends because a player is unable to play. This fits the concept of a forfeit.

Same goes for "elimination instance" - it's not applicable.

It certainly is applicable, in exactly the manner in which I applied it; your gainsaying changes nothing.

Yet another question is whether specific rules and definitions take precedence over general ones. Usually they do. For example "white" pieces in chess are almost never "white" in general sense. Mostly they are yellowish, but can be red or green as well. We call them "white" and it doesn't feel like a farce, does it?

This has nothing to do with anything I typed. Chess sets have light and dark colored pieces, which may or may not be black and white. We often use "black and white" as a generalization, and "black" is understood to be the black or dark colored pieces, and "white" is understood to be the light colored pieces. However, if "black" referred to white or light colored pieces, and "white" referred to black or dark colored pieces, it would be absurd.

owltuna

Forfeit is defined by the rules. Period.

No, not "period", obviously. "Forfeit" is a word and concept which did not originate in the rules of chess, thus "forfeit" is also defined by generally accepted usage in vernacular, just as all English words are.

If you have a rule in a game which defines a circular gamepiece as a square, it doesn't change the fact that it is logically a circle, because it fits the well-established concept and definition of a circle. This isn't rocket science.

Your logic fails, your premises are false. It's that simple.

You've established no such thing.

One idea you've failed to address in rebuttal is the concept of competition. Changing the rule and making stalemate a win/loss situation lessens the level of competition, severely so. Why do you want to do that?

How changing the rule would affect the game is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with the logic of the rule.

Logic. You keep using that word. I know it does not mean what you think it means.

^^^ Comical Irony Alert: Part II ^^^

tubebender

Has anyone ever noticed that it is usually relatively low rated players on this site (and with low ratings in USCF if they play that too) that come up with these whacked out ideas.

Let's see, for most of the history of chess in most parts of the world, a stalemated player lost, which is, according to you, a "whacked out idea" (without any supporting argument, of course). Also:

Grandmaster Larry Kaufman writes, "In my view, calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents the ultimate zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken" (Kaufman 2009). The British master T. H. Tylor argued in a 1940 article in the British Chess Magazine that the present rule, treating stalemate as a draw, "is without historical foundation and irrational, and primarily responsible for a vast percentage of draws, and hence should be abolished" (Reinfeld 1959:242–44).

I'd be willing to bet that neither of those guys would or would have had any problems against you in a chess game or match.

No, we don't have an answer, because your idea that I think that "the 'concept of forfeit' should rule the world of chess rules with an iron hand," is solely a product of your imagination, rather than something which followed from anything I said in reality. In reality, I haven't suggested any changes at all in the "world of chess".

Yes you did, post 325. Lying, now.

No, I didn't. Your laughably false "interpretation" of what I said does not = what I said, and ironically, you have now established yourself as a liar.

" In other words, forfeit is the name given to a specific type of loss."

If that wasn't meant to mean that all forfeits are losses, then you need to work on your usage of the English language.

How can something be 'a specific type of loss' but not always a loss?

(BTW as you seem not to understand: A, B and C are subtitutions for different parts of this debate).

I did not say that you suggested a change. I refer to the internal logical dependencies of the set of chess rules, where you seem to think that for some reason (which you refuse to explain properly) this concept should play a certain central role.

For all of those claiming that "stalemate is a win" is more "logic". I won't discuss whether it is, but I want to point out something : 
Chess is not designed to be logic. Chess is designed to be interesting, complex and rich. We wouldn't play othervise.
The en passant rule is not logic, but it was implemented to make the game more lively and to decrease the strength of pawns push, thus making the game more interesting.
The castle rule is not logic either, but it creates many interesting subtleties that are important for chess interest (just look at the difference between opposite and same-side castling).

I am convinced that the stalemate rule also make chess more interesting. 

I'm sure the stalemate rule was introduced with this in mind, yet still put in place because it would make the game more difficult to win..

If = is an equivalence relation, you need to get your tuition back

Off to the pit for all who think stalemate should be a win in chess !  

A forfeit is a specific type of loss, and logically, the result of a stalemate is a forfeit. There is nothing which logically precludes "A" (forfeit/loss) from being the result of "C" (stalemate).

Given that your conclusion didn't logically follow from anything I said, it was a non sequitur.

Sred

You're still not getting it. Here are the facts:

1: You said that a forfeit is always a loss.

2: Stalemate isn't a loss.

3. Therefore a stalemate can't be a forfeit.

It's basic logic.

Idk I think this thread is pretty entertaining. Continue your argument MaxR!

Yes, that's logic. Not like the stuff some other posters called logic for no apparent reason.

People at CERN?

Never mind.