Why stalemate should be a win.

This is not a definition of forfeit. This is just a sentence - "fofeit is a situation when player is unable or unwilling to play". It's like saying "A is B". Claiming that from "A is B" follows "B is A" is a well-know logical fallacy. So even if your statement is correct it doesn't mean that every situation when player is unable or unwilling to play is a forfait.

Example 1. Player might be unabe to play because of illness. Game is postponed.

Example 2. In amateur tournaments a player or a team might be unwilling to play on a scheduled day. Game/match is postponed.

Finally absence of legal moves has nohing in common with any other kind of inability to play. It is never called a forfeit in any sport/game and hence doesn't belong to a "forfeit concept".

^^^ Comical Irony Alert ^^^

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

A forfeit is a specific type of loss, just as rain is a specific type of precipitation, and a beagle is a specific type of dog.

2: Stalemate isn't a loss.

The logical result of a stalemate is a loss, of the specific type known as "forfeit".

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

Utterly absurd. Forfeit can certainly be the result of a stalemate, just as a draw can be the result of a stalemate, or a win can be the result of a stalemate, or a generic loss can be the result of a stalemate, all depending on what the rules specify as the result of a stalemate (win, loss, and draw have all been specified by various chess rules throughout history). Logically speaking, the result of a stalemate is forfeit, however.

It's basic logic.

Not even close. Here is an illustration of how absurd your idea of logic is:

Suppose I said that a draw is a specific type of win, i.e., a "lesser win" which is awarded to both players (both players win 1/2 point each). Then you came along and said:

1: You said that a draw is always a lesser win.

2: Stalemate isn't a lesser win.

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

If the first two are correct then the third is.

You don't understand basic logic.

You just established that you know as little about logic as Scottrf, given that his "logic" can also be used to "prove" that a "stalemate can't be a draw."

You didn't prove that stalemate can't be a draw because your assumptions were false.

This is funny. Yes, this is some fine logic, totally correct. But from wrong preconditions, by the "ex falso quodlibet" principle, you can of course logically derive everything.

Is this some sort of pathetic "semantics game" "tactic"? First of all, let's fix the semantics for the sake of people who are pretending to not understand common-speak:

1: You said that a forfeit is a type of loss.
2: Stalemate doesn't result in a loss according to the current rules of chess.
3. Therefore a stalemate can not result in a forfeit.

Your "logic" is obviously not logic at all. The fact that a stalemate doesn't result in a loss according to the current rules of chess has no bearing on whether or not it is possible for it to result in a loss, and of course it is possible; it has been done in the past and it can be done again, all it takes is a rule change.

But that is all irrelevant; the point of contention here is the logic of the stalemate rule. No one is disputing the content of the current stalemate rule (the rule which you so graciously pointed out in #2 of your "logic"). On top of that, #3 is a non sequitur, unless you meant it to say "Therefore a stalemate doesn't result in a forfeit according to the current rules of chess", in which case it would just be another irrelevant "Captain Obvious" type statement, the same as #2.

You didn't prove that stalemate can't be a draw because your assumptions were false.

My assumptions were "correct", if I played the same kind of semantics games that you tried to play. See above.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDdbg_Q-LMI

The logic goes like this: If a forfeit is a type of loss and a stalemate isn't a loss according to the chess rules, then according to the chess rules a stalemate isn't a forfeit.

This is totally correct logic of the simplest type. You can of course insist that it's irrelevant, but it's ridiculous to say that it isn't logic.

You, on the other hand, still failed to give a logical reasoning why your "forfeit concept" needs to be applied in a way you call "consistent", and you also failed to define your notion of consistency (we have already seen that you do not mean logical consistency).

This is fun.

Yes, thank you Captain Obvious, but no one is disputing what the current rules are.

This is totally correct logic of the simplest type. You can of course insist that it's irrelevant, but it's ridiculous to say that it isn't logic.

Of course it is correct logic, and of course it is utterly irrelevant. It only becomes correct logic when you word it correctly, without the semantics games, at which point its irrelevance is exposed. If you think that pointing out the current rules, which are not in dispute, is in any way relevant, then explain how.

You, on the other hand, still failed to give a logical reasoning why your "forfeit concept" needs to be applied in a way you call "consistent"

I never said it needs to be applied consistently; I've simply noted that it is not applied consistently, thus an internal inconsistency. Internal inconsistencies aren't logical.

and you also failed to define your notion of consistency (we have already seen that you do not mean logical consistency).

My "notion of consistency" is the same as the generally accepted "notion of consistency"; you can start with a dictionary if you don't know what the word "consistency" means.

Perhaps that is one way of looking at it. But since The "K- only" side in those endings has no winning chances at all, that would not really be a "competition" to win, only the possibility of a "swindle", and such endings are only that for players who do not understand the simple occassions where the pawn can't win. In any case, not a big lose to genuine competitive chess.

My only feelings on this issue concern the future of chess. I don't want to see it become an 'antique game' with little modern interest. Changes such as eliminating adjournments and faster time controls were necessary for obvious reasons, and one way to modernize the game. Of course, that such constraints result in less 'art' is an arguable point, but for most young players, winning is what it is all about, and they will never get to the point of appreciating the art unless they continue in the game, and I believe draws discourage interest.

I do believe that chess would benefit in popularity from looking at a few rule changes, eventually the "960" option might become the main form. But I understand people being conservative on this issue, unintended consequences are always a possibility, both positive and negative.  

BTW -- I also think they need to make the goals larger in soccer and hockey, so call me a radical...;)  

1. No, I do not think pointing out the current rules is relevant. Why would you think that?

2. The generally accepted notion of consistency? This word has about 1000 different meanings depending on the context. You are talking logic, please use the language of logic, where consistency means the absense of logical contradictions. Note that you still didn't show how the chess rules contain a logical contradiction.

3. You said "I've simply noted that it is not applied consistently, thus an internal inconsistency. Internal inconsistencies aren't logical."  Here we see that your notion of consistency is not the notion generally used in logic. You seem to mean something like "not applied in a uniform way", which has nothing to do with logical inconsistency. Therefore your inconsistency doesn't make anything illogical.

I've said it before: Your notion of logic is _not_ the one used by other people. You shouldn't pretend to use logic on the one hand and use common language meaning of technical terms on the other hand.

Yes, we realize that, but it's fun nonetheless. Or because of that?

The approach is called "Meta Trolling".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_gauge_theory

abstract algebra is *central* to modern physics. There are not just a "few" people using it. 

I was thinking about whether to point this out, and the words of Peter Sellers came to mind: "Cato, there is a time and a place for everything. And that time is now."

stalement should not be a win unless you beat Carlsen 50000000 games in a row!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so take that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MaximRecoil you didn't answer my post #361 - I repeat it here:

This is not a definition of forfeit. This is just a sentence - "fofeit is a situation when player is unable or unwilling to play". It's like saying "A is B". Claiming that from "A is B" follows "B is A" is a well-know logical fallacy. So even if your statement is correct it doesn't mean that every situation when player is unable or unwilling to play is a forfeit.

Example 1. Player might be unabe to play because of illness. Game is postponed.

Example 2. In amateur tournaments a player or a team might be unwilling to play on a scheduled day. Game/match is postponed.

Finally absence of legal moves has nothing in common with any other kind of inability to play. It is never called a forfeit in any sport/game and hence doesn't belong to a "forfeit concept".