I like the examples on this page 11.
I like @Batgirl's remark about them even better!
It looks that the "offside" rule in football is finally the closest that we can come up with.
That little 4-year-old who defeated GM Averbakh! That was something!
Maybe a rematch against Karpov is in the cards...
Are you posting this to show Capablanca made a wrong prediction?
At any rate, Capablanca's idea was just a variation on an old one: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-little-chess-village-part-ii
The objective of the game is to capture/kill the enemy's king. This is why when there is checkmate the game is over, because no matter what is done, the king will be captured in the next move.
Stalemate is a situation where the king is not in check, but regardless of where it moves, he will be captured in the next move. So basically a stalemate is a mate but without a check.
Yet for some reason, instead of the game being over and the person with more pieces is declared winner by stalemate, the game is considered a draw!!!
Why is it considered a draw if the king will be brutally destroyed in the next move?
I do not know who created the chess rules, but that person must have been a really bad player to the point that he decided to invent a stupid rule in order to still have a chance of drawing after all the blunders he made during the game.
It has to do with endgames, but don't feel bad, bad players / stupid people usually don't understand.
At your level all you need to know is don't queen all your pawns and capture all the opponent's pieces. As soon as you're 1 or 2 queens ahead play for mate right away.
Oh, actual history discussion. A better way to deal with troll topics.
batgirl, the reason I posted that is I realized my main issue is with the number of draws that currently occur in chess, especially at the GM level.
2016 World Championship
12 games
10 draws
Capablanca's fear of "death draw" appears to be happening right before our very eyes.
I wish he was here to help me on these forums.
batgirl, the reason I posted that is I realized my main issue is with the number of draws that currently occur in chess, especially at the GM level.
2016 World Championship
12 games
10 draws
Capablanca's fear of "death draw" appears to be happening right before our very eyes.
I wish he was here to help me on these forums.
World championship is different. High stakes both players took few risks. Karjakin in particular played boring crap all match long. For a better look see top tournaments like the Sinquefield cup.
I have started another forum called:
Capablanca's Fear of "Death Draw" is Here
People are starting to propose rule changes so fewer draws will occur.
I think I like variant 5 of Stalemate:
3/4 points
Anyway I think Stalemate has been discussed thoroughly enough here.
I have enjoyed your arguments and logic.
I will be reading and posting on the new forum where people are coming up with some interesting ideas.
Actually, Capablanca's "main motivation" for suggesting a variation wasn't so much remis-tod as the audacity in thinking that chess has reached it's highest point and was played out (himself being the pinnacle, of course).
All this comparing chess to war and saying stalemate should be a draw is illogical avoids the basic logic of stalemate being a draw in the first place.
In chess, you win the game by checkmating the opponent. If the opponent resigns, forfeits, or runs out of time, you also win. That's it. There's no other way to win.
If there is no legal way to checkmate your opponent, then it's a draw. It doesn't matter whether you have two Knights vs a lone king, or a whole army and the position is stalemate.
So, if you don't win, and don't lose, the only remaining option in a zero-sum game is to split the point. The simplest way to split the point is .5-.5. There's no arguing over who had the advantage before the stalemate position was reached, and there's no messy math.
Stalemate equalling a draw is perfectly logical from the perspective of the objective of chess, to kill the opposing king.
stalemate to me resembles when a leader of the army has lost his soldiers and is thrown in jail by the enemy. Checkmate is same situation except the enemy kills the leader. Stalemate should be a loss cuz you are trapped as if you are in jail, but not checkmated since you aren't dead.
Ok, who should win the game from the following position?
Chigorin missed this drawing idea, but the idea has occurred many times since this game.
Stalemate is part of chess. Since the K hasn't been captured, it's not a loss. Examples from history include King David escaping Saul to play another day, or Mao ZeDong's escape and "long march" which allowed him to play another game, so to speak.
stalemate to me resembles when a leader of the army has lost his soldiers and is thrown in jail by the enemy. Checkmate is same situation except the enemy kills the leader. Stalemate should be a loss cuz you are trapped as if you are in jail, but not checkmated since you aren't dead.
Yes, this is probably the prevailing sentiment...among elementary students.
Capablanca's fear of "death draw" appears to be happening right before our very eyes.
I wish he was here to help me on these forums.
If he was here he would probably take you to task for calling "draw death", his actual term referring to the death of chess via too many draws, "death draw", which is meaningless.
btickler,
Lol, yes he would!
stalemate is such a good rule it should appear twice :-)
To me stalemate has obvious parallel in the real world .
When neither side can hope to gain an advantage in war ,and continuing clashes would slowly deplete each party unto there own deaths, an armistice can be reached.
Just because you were so aggressive and epic that you eventually stifled your opponent into not being able to move doesn't mean you were better than they were it just means you were in a hurry to meet your equal-- Because defense counts for quite a lot there was no vanquishing moment.
Actually yes I meant Thermopylae....i should have refreshed my mind before posting.... it's all Greek to me anyway.