Why stalemate should be a win.

I like SpiritLancer argumentation in post #2, educated guy.

When I wrote that reply I was thinking I was replying to the same poster that typed out that ridiculous bit of "logic" (which did nothing but point out the current rules) in the first place, so consider that question redirected to him.

2. The generally accepted notion of consistency?

Yes; that is how all words are defined in the English language, i.e., by generally accepted real-world usage.

This word has about 1000 different meanings depending on the context.

Not quite, and the context here is clear. When I say that the concept of "forfeit" is inconsistently applied in chess, it can only mean one thing.

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.

I prefer vernacular, thanks. 

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.

Suppose that in a work of fiction Superman can fly. Then he can't fly. Then he's a woman. Then he's a unicorn. No internal explanations are given for this. This is a case of internal inconsistencies; it means that elements of the internal logic are at odds with each other. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp, and it applies just as well to a set of rules for a game. There is also the matter of external inconsistencies. If the work of fiction takes place in a real world setting (i.e., the "Like Reality Unless Noted" concept), then it should maintain consistency with reality in the parts which are not noted as being different from reality. For example, if Superman is in Georgia and he walks across the southern border, he should find himself in Florida, as opposed to e.g., Guam.

In chess, we have an internal inconsistency in that the concept of "forfeit" is recognized and applied correctly in all cases except for a stalemate. We also have several external inconsistencies in that a stalemate being a draw is at odds with at least a few real-world universal concepts such as "equality", "defeat", and of course, "forfeit" again. Logically, a stalemate is about as far as you can get from an equal result for both players, i.e., one player has been eliminated from the game due to being overwhelmed by the other player's force, exemplifying the concept of utter defeat, but the rules of chess are at odds with this; they farcically call it a draw. They might as well call black "white", or a circle "square".

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.

Here we have a case of pedantry built upon mere assertions. By the way, if you can't argue using vernacular, you should probably avoid trying to argue at all.

FirebrandX

You guys do realize you can perfectly 'checkmate' MaximRecoil in a point-by-point breakdown and he will simply twist your words to create a ridiculous retort, right?

This is comically ironic, coming from the guy whose "contributions" thus far have consisted of baseless, inept, and irrelevant editorials (which is also what your post I'm replying to right now consists of) and psychobabble. The idea of you being able to "checkmate" anyone in an argument, or even being able recognize when someone has been "checkmated" in an argument, is laughable.

I've seen liberals on political forums pull that same tactic and then claim they won the debate when the other side got tired of the circular arguing.

More comical irony, considering "liberals" are notorious for using your "tacits" during arguments; i.e., writing baseless opinion pieces, usually of the ad hominem variety, and they absolutely adore psychobabble.

Since you are clearly out of your depth in this, or any other, argument, maybe you should call your brother.

This is getting increasingly funnier. I'm calling my brother indeed, he needs to see this.

The point of chess is to capture the king. If you are unable to do so you shouldn't win unless on time. In stalemate the king isn't attacked, so he can just sit and relax without moving. It is illegal to move into check so he can't go anywhere therefore the game is ended as a no contest. Changing this rule would eliminate chess history of the past 200 years.

Humm...perhaps you are confusing "K+P vs. K" and "multiple pawn endings" where stalemate still plays a role, but is not the determining factor -- generally. There is really nothing difficult about "K+P vs. K" endings (which most one pawn up multiple pawn endings can generally be reduced to - unless the winnings side has a large advantage in position of those pawns)

Only novice players in the first instance would have trouble winning such positions, or determining when they are a dead draw through stalemate. As far as middle game situations are concerned, I am sure there are times when potential stalemates are a factor in planning at the highest level, especially in some locked pawn structures, but really, "playing a huge role in planning" -- I think that would be a stretch.

Botvinnik (were he still alive) might insist that game adjornments would be sorely missed from chess, but I haven't heard anyone complaining about that, least of all those players who use to sit in the tournament halls playing them out in the wee hours of the morning so they could be paired the next day. Yeah....I'm old enough to remember that! 

Of course, the flip side of that argument would be that if you can't move you will eventually flag!

I have to disagree there. Pawn endgames can be incredibly hard but K&P vs K is always simple.

+1

Yeah if you add pawns it can become complicated. I have a blog on them.

Never with just 1 pawn though, that was what I disagreed on.

No one's mentioned there didnt use to be a time limit on chess games (back in Morphy's days there definitely wasn't), the idea of flagging isn't an original part of chess. So it seems silly to argue that one of the older rules is wrong because of the consequences of a completely new rule.

Very good point

probably true...while minor changes in the game would likely occur, the real question is whether the benefits would out weight any potential loss. More wins and fewer draws would definitely benefit interest in top level chess, of that you could be sure.  

It reduces draws, but brilliant games that ended in stalmate with one side finding a way to give away all of it's pieces and drew the game by stalmate would now be un-enjoyable if stalemate becomes a win.

I personally think that it would reduce the number of gam games in the world. 

So...the trade off is; would the increase in interest in top level (and amateur) chess resulting from more decisive games, outweight the loss of brilliances or complexity involving stalemate? There will always be tradeoffs, and differing opinions will both have merit. My vote goes to more decisive games.

On the somewhat strained debate concerning "logic" and the stalemate rule. I would offer that with the imposition of time controls, stalemates would have to be a loss, for the simple reason that the stalemated player would eventually flag. So..perhaps the rule makers just overlooked that bit of "logic" when time controls were introduced.   

Why should the player who is stupid enough to stalemate a defender be rewarded with a win?

I'd just like to say that both cases make perfect sense. Either a win or a draw, both hold very good points and to be honest, maybe a win would be more logical. Even so, I'm glad it's considered a draw. I consider it an interesting rule with a positive impact on endgames.

Raging buffalo if they made stalemate a win it would make chess 1000x easier for computers to solve than it is now. It would literally destroy the endgame, and plenty of middle game positions where positional sacrifices are possible. Rather than challenging Go for braggings rights to the most complicated and popular mental game, it would join the ranks of checkers as a simpler game where no one would really care who won or lost, massively detracting interest in the game. I say this confidently as a 2100+ player.

I didn't say this to maxR because he was just having fun debating people and I doubt he really cared. I told you because you seem to have a true interest in this issue and whether it would be good for chess.

In the spirit of Henry Clay, a compromise should be made.  I would propose scoring games as 1 point for a win, .7 for a stalemate, .5 for a draw, .3 to a player who has been stalemated, and 0 for a loss.  I like .7 instead of .75 because it will result in fewer ties, i.e. a win plus a draw scores higher than two stalemates.  (Having win+draw score higher than two stalemates keeps it more consistent with the old system.)  Like any great compromise, it doesn't give anybody what they truly want, yet it solves problems:

• There will be fewer draws, since now K+P vs K is good for at least a stalemate, along with the drawn K+P vs K+Q positions, the K+2N vs K endgame, and the notorious K+B+P vs K where the pawn is a rook pawn and the bishop is the wrong color, as well as a myriad of other endgames that are drawn by quirky tricks to force stalemate.
• For those concerned that eliminating stalemate would make endgame technique easier: First, let me start by saying that this is ridiculous - the fact is, endgame technique would be harder without the stalemate rule.  It's true that K+P vs K becomes easier for the poor saps who can't get a handle on how the opposition works, but K+R+P vs K+R would be quite a bit trickier, thanks to all the stalemate tricks that can crop up in this endgame.  With that said, if a stalemate falls between a win and a draw, I'd think the folks wanting complexity would be thrilled - now you have new types of decisions: "I can trade down to an endgame that will end in a stalemate, but should I keep playing and try to get a whole point?", or "I can trade down to an endgame that will result in my getting stalemated, but can I get a full draw?" With five possible results now, the scoring system becomes even more complex.

So, there... wouldn't this change make everybody semi-happy?      

Obit,

Partial scoring is an interesting, if somewhat clumsy, work around. Parts of it work for me, and others don't. However, I'm not sure it solves the perception problem.

Your observations on complexity are interesting. Truth is, I think its hard to determine exactly what the impact would be of a stalemate rule change, although I thing Rogue King greatly exaggerates his case. Likewise, who cares about computers? They are bound to crack the game sooner or later anyway. "White to move - wins!"

Truthfully, I think "960" might be the best long term solution, but that's a good ways into the future. Probably after the computers crack the original starting position.