They'll never get rid of it, so get used to it. Learn not to stalemate.
MOST STUPID RULE : STALEMATE
Sort:
IanShawDulin wrote:
They'll never get rid of it, so get used to it. Learn not to stalemate.
It's also a pretty good idea to learn how to stalemate. That can be worth half a point sometimes.
Jul 5, 2023
0
#426
lfPatriotGames wrote:
IanShawDulin wrote:
They'll never get rid of it, so get used to it. Learn not to stalemate.
It's also a pretty good idea to learn how to stalemate. That can be worth half a point sometimes.
I hadn't thought about it, but you're right. Sometimes you find yourself in a position where it's best to secure a draw.
stalemate can be an annoying rule at times but its still very fair and makes sense. the king has no legal moves, and isnt in any checks, so yeah of course its a draw.
Jul 5, 2023
0
#429
You can only win by Checkmate or resignation.
No check, no mate, no win.
Jul 5, 2023
0
#430
Elzector wrote:
stalemate can be an annoying rule at times but its still very fair and makes sense. the king has no legal moves, and isnt in any checks, so yeah of course its a draw.
And sometimes a stalemate occurs with more than just the king on the board. Like I said previously, I once sacrificed a rook to prevent a stalemate in the very next move, and ended up winning, although in that position there was no guarantee that I would win. It was a gamble.
ChessDude009 wrote:
In a war, a king may be able to reach a compromise.
They say chess is supposed to be some sort of war game, but to me it's just a social game. But I see your point. A stalemate could be a compromise.
Jul 6, 2023
0
#432
stalemate is good because theirs no other way to end a over the board chess game king v king when both players haven't heard about the 50 move rule. they can call the position stalemate although this isn't technically correct, but it ends the game
Hidethe_painHarold wrote:
stalemate is good because theirs no other way to end a over the board chess game king v king when both players haven't heard about the 50 move rule. they can call the position stalemate although this isn't technically correct, but it ends the game
King vs. king is not stalemate. Please look up what stalemate is. It will be very useful.
Stalemate is not the problem, the root of the problem comes from not being able to take the king if the opponent blunders it, like pinning the horse to the king with the bishop like it happens so many times, if the opponent moves his horse, then you take the king in your turn and he loses, same goes in a situation where the king doesn’t have any safe squares anymore, he just moves to any square and maybe the opponent won’t notice so you can keep moving into a safe square, like imagine you are in a time scramble and you move your king next to the opponents king and they don’t notice it and in the next turn you take their king and win the game, sounds fun to me hahaa but damn misogynistic royalty, the queen can be blundered, but the king has special privilege, 💀
Jul 6, 2023
0
#435
magipi wrote:
Hidethe_painHarold wrote:
stalemate is good because theirs no other way to end a over the board chess game king v king when both players haven't heard about the 50 move rule. they can call the position stalemate although this isn't technically correct, but it ends the game
King vs. king is not stalemate. Please look up what stalemate is. It will be very useful.
[Removed: I3]
Jan 28, 2024
0
#436
tomtonna wrote:
Stupidest rule in any game I have EVER come across
For alot of mpts on here the game is skill and if U have torn ur opponent then he should be forced into check from other king and it is loss by check in this situation. GET USED TO IT. I don't comprehend ineptitude nor does this do against any part of the game which ends in checkmate
Stupidity come from one guy deserving a win and ending up it a retrded situation like this. Like draw in snooker or off side in football. People aren't always a full loaf 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤮🤣🤣🤣🤮🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Joined 27 minutes ago and came here to troll. Not quite the world record but a good effort!
stalemate makes sense
what do you want to happen instead?
Jan 31, 2024
0
#439
The thing is that as long as the other side's king doesn't move, the other side cant make progress. because it isn't their turn yet. the king also can't walk into check or make any waiting moves, so it has to be a draw. This is why opposition exists with the kings. Its really a necessary evil.
I dont understand people defending stalemate. Its not about the fact that if you blunder leading to a stalemate you deserved to loose, its about the fact that the rule shouldnt exist to begin with! The same goes for if the opponent manages to make a "great play" that ends up in stalemate. The thing is there shouldnt even be a rule that would allow him to win with a single king in the first place. He lost all the pieces, why should he have a chance to draw? Completely unfair. There is no excuse for it really.
"So in a position where neither side will checkmate, both sides are incapable of performing the objective of the game."