Give me three examples of games that will take more than 50 moves to win.
Your in the wrong page, but examples include:
2 Bishops vs Knight
Rook+Knight vs 2 knights
Rook+Bishop vs Bishop+Knight
2 knights vs Pawn
3 minor pieces vs Rook
Queen +Knight vs Rook+Bishop+Knight
+DOZENS OF OTHERS!
You aren't moving because you CAN'T move. That is not the universal concept of a forfeit.
Logically, that's your problem. Your opponent isn't the one preventing the game from continuing. He made a perfectly legal move every time it was his turn. You are preventing the game from continuing because you are the player to move and you are not moving, thus, logically, you lose by forfeit. If you don't want to be the one who has logically forfeited the game, then play differently so as to not end up in a position where you are preventing the game from continuing.
Told ya. He's got a screw loose. No matter what you say, odds are it will be considered non sequitor, dismissed out of hand, or is irrelevant and doesn't change the fact that a stalemate is a forfeit.
Those all mean the same thing. Something that is irrelevant is inherently a non sequitur (in the general sense of the term), and all non sequiturs can legitimately be dismissed in an argument, because they are irrelevant, obviously.
>Trying to use logic against someone like that is a sure way to never make any progress. You have to find out what he relates to and use that to have a sensible conversation. Logic is not it.
Comical Irony Alert
Just because you can't move doesn't mean u forfeit. It depends on the game and in chess, u don't. A checkmate is a type of stalemate, but a stalemate is not checkmate. Just because the rule doesn't make sense isolated, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense when integrated into the game. How can a pawn take another pawn on a different square then the pawn is on (en passant)? The pawn just moves behind the pawn and the pawn for some reason gets whipped off the board. Why is that so? But the rule makes sense in terms of the game. A pawn moving 2 squares should be capturable at least 1 time, but only one time. Same thing with stalemate.
Just because you can't move doesn't mean u forfeit.
Logically it does, as I've already said.
>It depends on the game and in chess, u don't.
It doesn't depend on the game with regard to logic; logic is logic, and it applies to all games. The current stalemate rule in chess is illogical, though it hasn't always been.
>A checkmate is a type of stalemate, but a stalemate is not checkmate. Just because the rule doesn't make sense isolated, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense when integrated into the game. How can a pawn take another pawn on a different square then the pawn is on (en passant)? The pawn just moves behind the pawn and the pawn for some reason gets whipped off the board. Why is that so? But the rule makes sense in terms of the game. A pawn moving 2 squares should be capturable at least 1 time, but only one time. Same thing with stalemate.
Those are rules which are part of defining the legal moves of the game. They work together fine, which is why chess is an eminently playable game. The stalemate rule pertains to the results of the game (win, lose, or draw) after it has ended due the player to move, not moving. Universal concepts associated with game results logically apply here, including the concept of a forfeit.
Stalemate was also mate(as the name itself makes it clear). But some thought it was a lesser mate and thus dishonorable way to win. So, in some places, it was seen as a draw. Then, someone made this into rule.
This rule is illogical and senseless. It is responsible for high level of draws in chess. So, decline in chess popularity is directly linked to two things:
1) classical format of 3 - 5 hr per game.
2) stalemate as a draw.
These two things make chess unattractive for TV audience(and money is generated by TV audience). Due to lack of chess popularity among masses, chess has to depend on donations. That means, being an IM or GM is not enough to earn a living by playing tournament chess.
Just because you can't move doesn't mean u forfeit.
Logically it does, as I've already said.
>It depends on the game and in chess, u don't.
It doesn't depend on the game with regard to logic; logic is logic, and it applies to all games. The current stalemate rule in chess is illogical, though it hasn't always been.
>A checkmate is a type of stalemate, but a stalemate is not checkmate. Just because the rule doesn't make sense isolated, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense when integrated into the game. How can a pawn take another pawn on a different square then the pawn is on (en passant)? The pawn just moves behind the pawn and the pawn for some reason gets whipped off the board. Why is that so? But the rule makes sense in terms of the game. A pawn moving 2 squares should be capturable at least 1 time, but only one time. Same thing with stalemate.
Those are rules which are part of defining the legal moves of the game. They work together fine, which is why chess is an eminently playable game. The stalemate rule pertains to the results of the game (win, lose, or draw) after it has ended due the player to move, not moving. Universal concepts associated with game results logically apply here, including the concept of a forfeit.
1. What? The logic of a game depends on the game itself. Something can be a forfeit in 1 game and not in another game. Stalemate is not forfeit. Your mixing up resigning, not showing up, and losses on time, with simply not being able to make a legal move. Not being able to make a move may be a loss in other games but not chess. How does stalemate not "work together well" with other chess rules?
2. The result of a game is BASED on the rules of the game, not the other way around. The fact that stalemate ends up determining the result of a game when it occurs, is irrelevant. The rules is stalemate is a draw, so if stalemate occurs it's a draw. I don't get your point saying the rule pertains to the result of the game?
Your opponent made legal move. Now, its your chance to move, you move. If you don't move, then your opponent wins. Simple.
Your opponent made legal move. Now, its your chance to move, you move. If you don't move, then your opponent wins. Simple.
The goal of chess is to CHECK the opponents king so that he can't move to stop the check. Stalemate there is no check, so your not accomplishing the objective of the game, so u don't win, very simple. If your piece is trapped on the side of the board, do you lose it? No, it just can't move until one of the squares opens up. Same applies here, except that if NO PIECES can move, the game can't continue. Doesn't mean the stalemating player won.
1. What? The logic of a game depends on the game itself.
The rule declaring the stalemate position to be a draw isn't part of the game, it is a rule which defines the result of the game in a particular situation. A result can only happen after the game is over.
>Something can be a forfeit in 1 game and not in another game.
Not logically. Forfeit is a universal concept. If a situation which fits the universal concept of a forfeit, is arbitrarily declared by the rules to be anything other than a loss for the forfeiting player, it is an illogical rule.
>Stalemate is not forfeit. Your mixing up resigning, not showing up, and losses on time, with simply not being able to make a legal move.
I'm not mixing up anything. Those are simply other examples of a loss due to forfeit. Those rules are logical; the stalemate rule isn't.
>Not being able to make a move may be a loss in other games but not chess.
See above.
How does stalemate not "work together well" with other chess rules?
This question is a non sequitur, i.e., it doesn't logically follow from anything I said.
>2. When player x stalemates player y, player x is the one causing the game not to continue because he forced a position where y can't move.
False. The one preventing the game from continuing is the one who isn't moving on his turn, obviously. The other player fully met his obligations, i.e., he made a legal move each and every time it was his turn. He has no logical obligation to babysit the other player in order to ensure he is left with a legal move.
1. I retract the last thing I said.
2. You stated something about how the rules fit together in your paragraph. I was responding to that.
3. Forfeit is not a universal concept. It depends on the rules of the game. Every game has different rules. What's forfeit in a game is dependant on that rules and legal options FOR THAT GAME, and is unique to that game. That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Your opponent made legal move. Now, its your chance to move, you move. If you don't move, then your opponent wins. Simple.
The goal of chess is to CHECK the opponents king so that he can't move to stop the check. Stalemate there is no check, so your not accomplishing the objective of the game, so u don't win, very simple. If your piece is trapped on the side of the board, do you lose it? No, it just can't move until one of the squares opens up. Same applies here, except that if NO PIECES can move, the game can't continue. Doesn't mean the stalemating player won.
When your opponent resigns or forfeits. You have not checkmated your opponent. Does that mean it is a draw?
Your comparing apples and oranges. Resigning is a willful decision because he thinks he's gonna lose by checkmate in the future! He's just giving up early. Stalemate ends the game period, no matter what the players were gonna do. Stalemate is a draw BASED ON THE POSITION, nothing else.
What no one (well u guys) can understand is that Stalemate isn't accomplishing the objective of the game. Even if u say the guy forfeits, but why should the STALEMATER win? I think u need to look at the reason stalemate is a draw and try to understand the logic in that and then you'll have a better understanding of why stalemate is and should be a draw. If it was so obvious as you are suggesting, then why is stalemate a draw? What's the counter argument?
When your opponent resigns or forfeits. You have not checkmated your opponent. Does that mean it is a draw?
Your opponent resigns because he acknowledges that checkmate is unavoidable. It's not a different method of forcing a win; you can't force him to resign. There are a number of ways to draw a game. You and your opponent may agree to a draw because you both acknowledge that a draw (by stalemate, threefold repetition, insufficient material, etc.) is unavoidable.
Exactly.
The objective of the game is to checkmate your opponent. It is the only way a player himself can win the game. He may be awarded the win for reasons external to the game itself, such as resignation, time expiration, forfeiture and disqualification. But he has no control over those; they result from external decisions and actions by his opponent, not by moves on the board. The "stalemate wins" people claim that stalemate should be a forfeit since it results when it is a player's turn and he doesn't move. That's a ridiculous argument. One only needs to know the definition of forfeit (a fine or penalty for wrongdoing or for a breach of the rules in a club or game) to know stalemate cannot be a forfeit. The stalemated player doesn't violate the rules by not moving; in fact, he would violate them by moving! And it was his opponent's move that forced the stalemate. His opponent (either purposefully or accidentally) caused the game to end but not in checkmate. If the game ends without checkmate (except for reasons external to the game itself as cited above), it is drawn. That is the only logical outcome because the objective of the game is checkmate.
Many people who argue that stalemate should result in a win by forfeit for the stalemating player base their argument on logic. But their argument is illogical on its face. They either don't know or don't care what forfeit means. I suspect for many of them, this "logical" argument is pretense. My guess is that their unspoken objection to the stalemate draw rule has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with the challenge of winning king and pawn vs king endgames. Many lack the skill to gain opposition and therefore they inevitably watch their won games end in draws because of that damned stalemate rule. If the stalemate rule was changed to a win for the stalemating player, difficult king and pawn vs king endgames would essentially become guaranteed wins, requiring only enough "skill" to keep the pawn protected. Some woodpushers would rejoice but the rule change would cause the game to lose much of its complexity and richness. Instead of advocating the dumbing down of our game, the "stalemate wins" people should instead play games that require less skill and imagination.
FBloggs
You said it probably better than I could. I suggested those people might be happier playing games like checkers, where a stalemate is a win by the side that forced the stalemate. Chess is a difficult game, and it's not a game for everyone. I also agree that you cannot use logic to talk to someone if they think stalemate should be a win because they abandoned logic long ago. They are motivated by something very different from logic, antilogic probably. Once you know what kind of antilogic they are using to make their case, then you can also use that to find common ground and carry on a reasonable conversation. Until then it's like explaining to a hamster the benefits of a smartphone while the hamster is trying to tell you how great his wheel is.
The objective of the game is to checkmate your opponent.
First and foremost, the object of the game is to make a legal move. If you don't do that, nothing else can happen.
>It is the only way a player himself can win the game.
Obviously false.
>He may be awarded the win for reasons external to the game itself, such as resignation, time expiration, forfeiture and disqualification.
And you just refuted your own obviously false statement. "External to the game itself" is irrelevant; all of those things boil down to a player not making a move, which is also what happens in stalemate.
>But he has no control over those; they result from external decisions and actions by his opponent, not by moves on the board.
What of it?
>The "stalemate wins" people claim that stalemate should be a forfeit since it results when it is a player's turn and he doesn't move.
I'm pretty sure that's strictly my argument.
>That's a ridiculous argument.
Your mere assertion is dismissed.
>One only needs to know the definition of forfeit (a fine or penalty for wrongdoing or for a breach of the rules in a club or game) to know stalemate cannot be a forfeit. The stalemated player doesn't violate the rules by not moving;
Yes, he does violate the rules by not moving. Chess is a game where players must take alternating turns, and there is no option to "pass" your turn. If you don't move, you're in violation of the rules, thus, a loss by forfeit.
>in fact, he would violate them by moving!
That too. As I already said more than once, the stalemated player has two options:
1. Make a move. It would be an illegal move by definition, thus a loss by forfeit.
2. Don't move. Chess requires you to make a move on your turn (there is no option to "pass" your turn), thus a loss by forfeit.
>And it was his opponent's move that forced the stalemate.
His opponent's move was perfectly legal. He's not in violation of the rules, the guy who isn't moving is.
The rest of your post consists of non sequiturs and things which have already been refuted.
Only a moron would argue that not moving after the game has ended in accordance with the rules of chess violates the rules of chess.
You aren't moving because you CAN'T move. That is not the universal concept of a forfeit.
Logically, that's your problem. Your opponent isn't the one preventing the game from continuing. He made a perfectly legal move every time it was his turn. You are preventing the game from continuing because you are the player to move and you are not moving, thus, logically, you lose by forfeit. If you don't want to be the one who has logically forfeited the game, then play differently so as to not end up in a position where you are preventing the game from continuing.
Told ya. He's got a screw loose. No matter what you say, odds are it will be considered non sequitor, dismissed out of hand, or is irrelevant and doesn't change the fact that a stalemate is a forfeit.
Those all mean the same thing. Something that is irrelevant is inherently a non sequitur (in the general sense of the term), and all non sequiturs can legitimately be dismissed in an argument, because they are irrelevant, obviously. If you don't type out irrelevancies, I don't type out "non sequitur" in my reply.
>Trying to use logic against someone like that is a sure way to never make any progress. You have to find out what he relates to and use that to have a sensible conversation. Logic is not it.
Comical Irony Alert