???
Chess and some of its semantically incorrect terms (such as stalemate)
Sort:
Apr 4, 2010
0
#5
Eo____ wrote:
A stalemate is a position in which neither side can win: a deadlock.
Yet, according to the rules of Chess, the following position is a stalemate:
And yet, according the rules of Chess, the following position, which is a true stalemate, is not even an automatic draw:
In summary, I believe that the use of the word "stalemate" within the chess context needs to be revised. In the first example, it's black's turn to move. The black king can't remain in the corner and claim it's a draw because he won't move. I might as well do the same thing (not move) whenever I am in a losing position, and it's a draw. Furthermore, if all the other pieces can be sacrificed, from insignificant pawns to mighty queens, why can't the same apply to the king?
The only true stalemates are those in which neither side can win, such as the one shown in the second example. Positions such as the one shown in the first example result in checkmates.
You are making no sense. In the first position black has no legal moves. Get it. LEGAL moves. That's the definition of a stalemate. It's your move and you have no legal moves. Besides your diagram is messed up because it says "white to move".
Your second diagram is drawn, but it's NOT a Stalemate. If either side refused to submit to the draw it would be drawn after the "50 move rule" were invoked. That is: 50 moves without a check or a pawn move.
Less coffe more sleep or you just have too much time on your hands I'm guessing? I guess we all do if we're here.
Apr 4, 2010
0
#6
"A stalemate is a position in which neither side can win: a deadlock."
With Black to move, the first position is clearly a stalemate according to your definition, as White cannot win. It is not his turn. Black has no legal moves, and so cannot move. Neither player can win: a deadlock. Thank you for disproving your own point.
Apr 4, 2010
0
#7
Now this make sense-
Polydiatonic-"You are making no sense. In the first position black has no legal moves. Get it. LEGAL moves. That's the definition of a stalemate. It's your move and you have no legal moves. Besides your diagram is messed up because it says "white to move".
Your second diagram is drawn, but it's NOT a Stalemate. If either side refused to submit to the draw it would be drawn after the "50 move rule" were invoked. That is: 50 moves without a check or a pawn move."
WellRounded, you were well-founded.
polydiatonic wrote:
Your second diagram is drawn, but it's NOT a Stalemate. If either side refused to submit to the draw it would be drawn after the "50 move rule" were invoked. That is: 50 moves without a check or a pawn move.
No. Check has absolutley nothing to do with it.
"The fifty-move rule in chess states that a player can claim a draw if no capture has been made and no pawn has been moved in the last fifty consecutive moves (fifty moves by each side)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule
Umm, I like turtles?
Eo, do you realize that the common meaning for "stalemate" comes from the chess term, not the other way around?
Apr 4, 2010
0
#12
giantrobot wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
Your second diagram is drawn, but it's NOT a Stalemate. If either side refused to submit to the draw it would be drawn after the "50 move rule" were invoked. That is: 50 moves without a check or a pawn move.
No. Check has absolutley nothing to do with it.
"The fifty-move rule in chess states that a player can claim a draw if no capture has been made and no pawn has been moved in the last fifty consecutive moves (fifty moves by each side)."
oh now I'm embarrassed...sorry about that sloppy bit...
Troll.
You don't deserve to wear that avatar.
In his previous thread, he was defeated because his definition of "stalemate" in chess was flawed. In this thread, he's stating that the actual definition of "stalemate" in chess is semantically incorrect. Since he's obviously not going to win this discussion either, he's bound to post a thread about epistemological questions such as "What is a definition and how can we achieve one?" next. When that attempt fails, he will probably start contesting the existence of the universe.
A-232 wrote:
In his previous thread, he was defeated because his definition of "stalemate" in chess was flawed. In this thread, he's stating that the actual definition of "stalemate" in chess is semantically incorrect. Since he's obviously not going to win this discussion either, he's bound to post a thread about epistemological questions such as "What is a definition and how can we achieve one?" next. When that attempt fails, he will probably start contesting the existence of the universe.
I loled.
Apr 5, 2010
0
#17
A-232 wrote:
In his previous thread, he was defeated because his definition of "stalemate" in chess was flawed. In this thread, he's stating that the actual definition of "stalemate" in chess is semantically incorrect. Since he's obviously not going to win this discussion either, he's bound to post a thread about epistemological questions such as "What is a definition and how can we achieve one?" next. When that attempt fails, he will probably start contesting the existence of the universe.
This brings to mind a quote I came across many years ago:
"Is knowledge knowable? If not, now can we know this?".
The author of this epistemological bit of wit? None other than the great, if somewhat f'd up: Woody Allen. The book? "Getting Even". I read it when I was about 15 in the 70's...
polydiatonic wrote:
A-232 wrote:
In his previous thread, he was defeated because his definition of "stalemate" in chess was flawed. In this thread, he's stating that the actual definition of "stalemate" in chess is semantically incorrect. Since he's obviously not going to win this discussion either, he's bound to post a thread about epistemological questions such as "What is a definition and how can we achieve one?" next. When that attempt fails, he will probably start contesting the existence of the universe.
This brings to mind a quote I came across many years ago:
"Is knowledge knowable? If not, now can we know this?".
The author of this epistemological bit of wit? None other than the great, if somewhat f'd up: Woody Allen. The book? "Getting Even". I read it when I was about 15 in the 70's...
It's a classical objection to epistemological relativism.
Every site has their own pet troll. I'm so happy I found who it is in here. Now I can dress it to a funny Darth Vader costume... 
A stalemate is a position in which neither side can win: a deadlock.
Yet, according to the rules of Chess, the following position is a stalemate:
And yet, according the rules of Chess, the following position, which is a true stalemate, is not even an automatic draw:
In summary, I believe that the use of the word "stalemate" within the chess context needs to be revised. In the first example, it's black's turn to move. The black king can't remain in the corner and claim it's a draw because he won't move. I might as well do the same thing (not move) whenever I am in a losing position, and it's a draw. Furthermore, if all the other pieces can be sacrificed, from insignificant pawns to mighty queens, why can't the same apply to the king?
The only true stalemates are those in which neither side can win, such as the one shown in the second example. Positions such as the one shown in the first example result in checkmates.