Why stalemate should be a win.

What's currently in the rules isn't in question here. The logic of the stalemate rule is what's in question.

This one sometimes is a draw.

Although not personally expressing support or agreement , some interesting points made by MaximR , and well put.

And the clear reasoning behind post #115 shut up that idiot kaynight for a while , which is certainly a bonus.

A mere assertion is not an argument.

Why the insults, anyway?

You know that mere assertions and mere gainsaying can legitimately be dismissed out of hand, right? Without any arguments in support of your assertion that "Making stalemate a win lessens the logic of the game," it carries zero weight in a debate.

I wouldn't say the current rule is more logic, but more appropiate, since the target of the game is to capture the enemy king. When you are checkmated, is not only you haven't any legal moves but you can't avoid your king to be taken in the next move. Stalemate as a win could make sense, but it looks a bit weird to me. I think is a matter of taste at the end.

Currently the game is decided by checkmate. Therefore, since stalemate prevents checkmate there isn't a winner. The option not to play is a forfeit, whether before the game starts or during the game.

If the game was to be decided by a player having no moves left, then stalemate being a win is logical.

The game is currently decided in terms of a win/loss by checkmate or forfeit (i.e., time forfeit, failure to show forfeit, resignation (a form of forfeit). All of those types of forfeit are because the player can not legally make a move or is unwilling to do so. Stalemate is logically the same thing, i.e., forfeit due to not being able to legally make a move, thus logically a win for his opponent, the same as with any other type of forfeit.

Logic = sound reasoning. Sound reasoning does not result in contradictions or inconsistencies in a set of rules. In the current chess rules we have the ages-old concept of "forfeit" being applied inconsistently. If you can't move, you either forfeit or you don't; it can't be both, and be logical, at the same time.

The game is indeed decided as a loss for a player who is unable to make a legal move, or is unwilling to do so, and I've already given examples (e.g., time forfeit, failure-to-show forfeit, and resignation).

By the way, I've bolded your [ironically] false premise, which negates your entire post.

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

"Fool."

Comical irony, coming from the simple fellow who makes mere assertions and preaches about a "faulty premise", in a post which is based on a demonstrably false premise.

Discussions of Stalement tend to bring out the very best in people.

What a pair of tits :-)

Stop trying to change an ancient game that has been around for centuries.

If you had to actually take your opponent's king to win then sure stalemate wouldn't exist, but you don't so it does and it allows for some "creative" tactics as well as an opportunity for kids to throw a tantrum in a bullet game :)

Agreed!  Why so many utter morons want to change the rules is beyond me.  It's probably because they are too incapable of playing the game the way it should be played, and must have fallen victim to either an eternal rook, or done something really stupid like stalemated with K and Q versus lone K.

Of course, if you claim Stalemate to be a win, that would mean that the player that can't move MUST be allowed to "Pass".  Well, guess what, if you can "Pass", then you've officially removed the Zugzwang tactic, and the following position, which should be known by everybody to be a win for White no matter who is to move, would now be a draw as if I was Black, I could pass every time to the end of eternity and White can't win:

I don't necessarily see the logical step of reasoning that says a player MUST be allow to pass if stalemate is to become a win.  Equally plausable would be that you are now allowed to move into check and thus your opponent wins by taking your king.

That aside, obviously I agree with the rest of the sentiment!  Let stalemate be stalemate!

• glamdring27 wrote:

I don't necessarily see the logical step of reasoning that says a player MUST be allow to pass if stalemate is to become a win.  Equally plausable would be that you are now allowed to move into check and thus your opponent wins by taking your king.

And then there goes the opposition tactic of course...and bye bye subtlety!

That aside, obviously I agree with the rest of the sentiment!  Let stalemate be stalemate!

This would require 2 additional changes to the rules:

• Legalizing walking into check
• Legalizing capture of the King

Both are currently illegal.  In normal chess, if you leave yourself or walk yourself into check, you are obligated to make a different move, and with the piece you touched if that has a legal move, no matter how much nonsense the move may be.  In blitz chess, you declare that the opponent is in check and you win.

Right ThrillerFan, but that doesn't mean you must allow a player to pass on a move. You simply change the rules which the Stalemate rule change affects. So you abolish Stalemate and allow the king to walk into checks and be capturable- this makes sense because it allows someone to "risk" their king being captured if they decide the position is otherwise lost so they commit a desperado in an attempt to alter the game into a more favorable position for them. I could see this come in use in blitz games. It also makes more sense in terms of how a game is won- when the opposing king is captured, instead of to be captured.

If you allow kings to walk into check then it would alter the rules of castling, where a king in check could castle to safety and also walk through a check while castling. This also would add an interesting twist to opening theory and tactics.

Whatever side of the fence you're on the idea that you must allow an option for players to pass on a move is unnecessary to the issue of removing Stalemate. You just modify the existing rules as necessary to account for the stalemate change. I see the appeal of both sides.

The whole pount of chess is to capture the king. It is absurd that if a player CAN NOT do this he is awarded a win.

In any other sport, if you can not complete the objective are you awarded for your effort? In boxing if you can't hit your opponent you are not awarded because he slips your punches.

This is the whole stupid crap that makes it so kids games aren't scored. If you can not win, you don't deserve to win. Capture the king, if not, draw or lose.

Material count is not the point of chess, only the enemy king and his scalp! Not the queen, not all their pawns, not who has an extra piece ... or eight ... only the king.