wins should be scored as 2 points, draws as 1, stale win as 1.5, stale loss 0.5
Why stalemate should be a win.
Sort:
Mar 13, 2015
0
#403
The whole issue with king captures being illegal started when someone decided, rather arbitrarily, that games ending with king captures looked ugly. In other words, the rule is based on esthetics, not logic. Now, young kids don't care about what looks pretty in chess, and they don't have a problem with allowing king captures. If one kid leaves his king en prise, the other takes it and waves it in the air, saying "I got your king!" Then they reset the board and start another game. No problem.
In fact, if any of you have ever tried teaching chess to a young child, I'll bet you are more sympathetic to the idea of making stalemate a win. It's a lot easier to explain to a six-year-old that the goal in chess is to capture the king, rather than saying the goal is to reach a position where any move made by your opponent results in his king being captured next move, with the proviso that the king must also be under attack - if the king is not under attack, but any move the king or any other piece makes exposes the king to capture, then this is a draw, not a win.
Those of you who think that eliminating stalemate would make endgames too easy, well, that simply isn't true. Agreed, K+P vs K is easier, but add a piece to each side and endgame technique gets harder. Also, while you may lose the esthetic situations where a player in a bad position saves a half-point with stalemate, this would be offset by positions where a player is able to force stalemate in an otherwise drawn position. But, if the goal is to make the game as complicated as possible, I'd be in favor of a rule change similar to what MikeCrockett described: 1 point for win by checkmate, .5 for a draw, .7 to a player stalemating his opponent, .3 to the stalemated player. (Using .7 instead of .75 is to reduce the number of ties at the end of a tournament.) This maximizes the complexity, reduces the likelihood of a draw, and retains the stalemate rule for the diehard purists.
OBIT írta:
The whole issue with king captures being illegal started when someone decided, rather arbitrarily, that games ending with king captures looked ugly. In other words, the rule is based on esthetics, not logic. Now, young kids don't care about what looks pretty in chess, and they don't have a problem with allowing king captures. If one kid leaves his king en prise, the other takes it and waves it in the air, saying "I got your king!" Then they reset the board and start another game. No problem.
In fact, if any of you have ever tried teaching chess to a young child, I'll bet you are more sympathetic to the idea of making stalemate a win. It's a lot easier to explain to a six-year-old that the goal in chess is to capture the king, rather than saying the goal is to reach a position where any move made by your opponent results in his king being captured next move, with the proviso that the king must also be under attack - if the king is not under attack, but any move the king or any other piece makes exposes the king to capture, then this is a draw, not a win.
Those of you who think that eliminating stalemate would make endgames too easy, well, that simply isn't true. Agreed, K+P vs K is easier, but add a piece to each side and endgame technique gets harder. Also, while you may lose the esthetic situations where a player in a bad position saves a half-point with stalemate, this would be offset by positions where a player is able to force stalemate in an otherwise drawn position. But, if the goal is to make the game as complicated as possible, I'd be in favor of a rule change similar to what MikeCrockett described: 1 point for win by checkmate, .5 for a draw, .7 to a player stalemating his opponent, .3 to the stalemated player. (Using .7 instead of .75 is to reduce the number of ties at the end of a tournament.) This maximizes the complexity, reduces the likelihood of a draw, and retains the stalemate rule for the diehard purists.
The problem with the scoring is only that in a tournament, one can assume that players would simply not cause stalemate, nor walk into them, rendering it completely unneccessary.
the reason for a 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5 scoring system for stalemate isn't to eliminate tie breaks. it is intended to be compatible with existing software such a swisssys that most tournament directors use for running a weekend tournament. The alternate scoring system would be used for pairing purposes and prize distribution only. For rating reports and rules interpretations the stalemate would be handled as a standard draw until the rating services can revise their formulas to accommodate the revised scoring method.
You need to be able to capture the opposing king in order to torture him for information vital to your own existence. (That's why you never kill him.)
Stalemate: No way you get what you need from him, which means your existence is still under threat and eventually you may die.
Get the King or else. We didn't build Guantanamo/Gulug/Abu Ghraid for nothing.
...and besides like I said before. Bobby Fischer wasn't in favor of any such deltas so this dialogue should be terminated and never should have been started in the first place without some kind of proof he would have approved.
Such simple minded reformists.
you can't use stalemate for anything useful
but you can use stale bread to make bread pudding
yes
How is this even a question? If i make my opponent stuck that has no moves this is a pure win. For me this is a win. Or at least not a draw 😏
If anything, stalemate should be a win for player WHO GET STALEMATED
It's easy to avoid stalemate if you're cautious. And forcing opponent to stalemate is arguably harder than delivering a checkmate
Also, insufficient material is not stalemate. It's just a draw
May 9, 2023
0
#411
windmill64 wrote:
I think a much better alternative to changing the Stalemate rule is to just adjust the scoring of such games, 0.75 points for the Stalemater and 0.25 for the Stalemated player.
Personally, I think a much better idea would be to just PAY ATTENTION to what's happening on the chess-board.
TheOldReb wrote:
If you really dont like stalemate being a draw then play checkers/draughts ! Problem solved !
Better idea, I'll just ignore what a bunch of bureaucrats say, and play by whatever rules I want
I don't give a damn about the opinions of random tournament grifters. I don't give a damn about how much effort has been invested in end games, or what someone's ELO is, etc. These people mean nothing to me. Sounds like their problem.
Sep 29, 2023
0
#413
Where and with whom will you play these games?
Certainly not online and offline, unsanctioned, you can play whatever weird variant you want,
Certainly not online and offline, unsanctioned, you can play whatever weird variant you want,
It was made a proposition to Fide that the condition of mate to be substituted by stalemater wins!! They said that the Gm fruits are yet unripped. Maybe in the future
Rule of Proficiency
If the player who strategically forced a stalemate such that he or she produced a material advantage then the win should be in the favor of that person.
Contrariwise, if a player strategically avoids a direct attack on his or her King whilst maintaining a material advantage then the win should be in the favor of that person.
Lastly, there are 3 possibilities for the outcome of an end game and ought to be prioritized in accordance with the etiquette of conventional gameplay as follows:
1. DRAW: A scholarly result for the novelty of the game.
2. STALEMATE: A competitive result for intermediaries of the game.
3. CHECKMATE: An expertly result for the advancement of the game.
It must be proven by reasons owed to the style of play wherefore the strategic approaches are obvious such that the players intended to exercise a certain level of respective proficiency as the exact means of a corresponding judgement once the end game has been satisfied.
Not committing to this rule is to say that the strongest players throughout the history of the game have only won by chance.
Enough of this ridiculous thread. Keep stalemate. If anyone in the West Orange Chess Club were to ever say that stalemate should end, they would be thrown out of the club for at least 93 meeting days. It's harsh but consider it tough love. Mic drop!
Chessflyfisher wrote:
Enough of this ridiculous thread. Keep stalemate. If anyone in the West Orange Chess Club were to ever say that stalemate should end, they would be thrown out of the club for at least 93 meeting days. It's harsh but consider it tough love. Mic drop!
The many ways to interpret a stalemate are worthy of criticism like most things which are related to chess. Likewise, there has to be those systemic methodologies which relate the predictable outcomes for a game to the individual skill sets of certain players. It could be an American advent to play by the Rule of Proficiency and a philosophical or socio-political movement unto itself.
Nov 4, 2023
0
#418
Frustrated by blundering into a stalemate when you had an easy win?
Instead of changing the rules of the game, why not just
Pay Attention?
They are growing and are forsaking tactics due to perfect positional moves!! Stalemate is a positional win while mate is a tactic childish move. Its the straw or fire argument!!
blueemu wrote:
Frustrated by blundering into a stalemate when you had an easy win?
Instead of changing the rules of the game, why not just
Pay Attention?
The adaptation of chess from its predecessor Chaturanga has made the modern rules unreasonably biased in most cases and the weakening of the ability to perform meta-analysis during gameplay the fault of morbid laziness; albeit, the goal of the original Indian chess game saw to it that eviscerating the forces of the opponent was the only intentional outcome. Moreover, the object could be to cultivate an awareness of controlled chaos by developing the skill sets of a player whilst intentionally playing towards a definite end game (e.g. Win by Draw, Win by Stalemate, or Win by Checkmate in accordance with a specific order by way of the Rule of Proficiency in a waged match whilst earning validation marks for adhering to the consistency of one's repertoire). Ergo, if the Ghanaian-American development for mastering a style of play under tightened regulations causes an increase in psychological accuracy and precision in terms of the accessible gaming behavior that players exhibit, then attentiveness becomes a credible feature within particular communities; wherefore, the pursuits of chess rest upon the betterment of every competitor as it were the meritocracy afforded to the success of any military conquest.
maybe in the future, when chess is solved.
but for now, no.
Again, noone here is arguing for it to actually be changed. This is a discussion about elegance of rules.
The goal of the original chess was simply to take the king, no rules about saying check or preventing you from moving into check. Then 1500 years ago they decided to make a rule forcing you to announce check. This was to prevent people losing a 3 hour game from a single blunder. It's quite understandable and hard to argue against that rule.
But as a side effect it created a situation where the king might not be able to move (stalemate obviously). And so they had to handle that situation in some way as far as winning / losing / drawing goes. As has been mentioned, it used to be a win in some places and a loss in others.
So you can see the rule of stalemate flows purely from the rule introduced for 'check'. And the rule for 'check' was simply there as a friendly rule, very different from the rule of actually taking the king was is an important structural rule of the game.