Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever - Chess Forums - Page 15

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Oct 2, 2017

0

#281

Pashak1989 wrote:

Diagram 2 is BS, why should we even discuss a position that have never ever happened and will never ever happen?

If a position like that happened in real life, the player with the black pieces should be killed immediately.

The point I'm making is that just because someone stalemated their opponent doesn't meant they should win. Both positions 1 and 2 prove that.

Pashak1989

Oct 2, 2017

0

#282

mickynj escribió:

"The objective of the game is to capture/kill the enemy's king. "

When you start out with such a ridiculous misunderstanding, everything else follows logically, I guess. The object of the game is to capture the enemy king through a sequence of legal moves. You can't win a game by deciding that your rook can jump like a knight, and you can't win a game by clumsily stalemating your opponent.

Oh Dear, and you talk about ridiculous misunderstanding? The irony is really strong here.

IMKeto

Oct 2, 2017

0

#283

Two ways to look at this:

1. If you dont know enough to avoid stalemate, your opponent deserves the half point.

2. If your opponent is smart enough to steer a game into stalemate, they deserve the half point.

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Oct 2, 2017

0

#284

FishEyedFools wrote:

Two ways to look at this:

1. If you dont know enough to avoid stalemate, your opponent deserves the half point.

2. If your opponent is smart enough to steer a game into stalemate, they deserve the half point.

Exactly. If someone doesn't know how to mate with 2 queens and stalemates, they shouldn't win. Also, stalemate is a tactic used to draw endgames, so it must be a draw!

Robhad

Oct 3, 2017

0

#285

EndgameStudy wrote:

FishEyedFools wrote:

Two ways to look at this:

1. If you dont know enough to avoid stalemate, your opponent deserves the half point.

2. If your opponent is smart enough to steer a game into stalemate, they deserve the half point.

Exactly. If someone doesn't know how to mate with 2 queens and stalemates, they shouldn't win. Also, stalemate is a tactic used to draw endgames, so it must be a draw!

Exactly. For example, in the following puzzle:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/more-puzzles/puzzle-all-for-one-and-one-for-all

There is beauty in such tactics, just as there are in checkmating tactics.

idkanymore0-0

Oct 3, 2017

0

#286

Pashak1989 wrote:

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.

I agree with you.... I am about to win when I lose

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Oct 3, 2017

0

#287

AviaSharma wrote:

Pashak1989 wrote:

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.

I agree with you.... I am about to win when I lose

That's so wrong lol. If u don't understand how to force mate, u shouldn't win. Winning means being able to attack the king WHILE trapping it at the same time. U have to do both. Also, not all stalemate positions result in the king being able to be captured next move. there are stalemates where one side CAN'T MOVE AT ALL-NO SPACE. Stalemate is a draw.

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Oct 3, 2017

0

#288

Pashak1989 wrote:

Diagram 2 is BS, why should we even discuss a position that have never ever happened and will never ever happen?

If a position like that happened in real life, the player with the black pieces should be killed immediately.

Why consider this position? Because the rules of chess have to take ALL Possibilities into account! Rarity of a position is completely irrelevant to the rules of the game. U said stalemate should be a win because the king will be captured on the next move. Here's a position where it's stalemate but the king CANNOT be captured on the next move. It doesn't matter if it's likely to occur or not. The rules have to consider it. What about the 1st endgames? U can say: the king will take the king on the next move, but a king is not allowed to check another king. So that argument would be invalid also.

FM TitanChess666

Oct 3, 2017

0

#289

Why the haters? This is just somebody trying to state their opinion! And you have absolutely no respect for that! I am not saying that critique is bad, just do in a more disciplined way, not "That's a dumb idea" or "It doesn't make sense."

FM TitanChess666

Oct 3, 2017

0

#290

I think what Pashak1989 means is that stalemate should be a win for the side that can still make a move. If the king is not in check, then it is a draw. And if there is a mutual stalemate (Which is possible), then it is also a draw. If the king is not in check but any legal move loses the king, then it is a loss for the stalemated side.

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Oct 4, 2017

0

#291

Ur saying that the side who cannot make a move at all loses? That makes more sense, but it shouldn't win the game. U have to BOTH trap the king, AND check it. U can't just trap it. Also, in those mutual stalemates, the last player to move would win, but if both sides are stalemating, how can u say 1 side won? The main problem with stalemate is that the king is NOT ALLOWED to move into check. Therefore, it is invalid to say that the king could move to a square, and be captured, if the king isn't permitted to make that move. If the king was able to move into check, then u could make stalemate a win. Otherwise, u'd be violating the basic rules in letting the king move into check. Basically, Stalemate is a draw because the game can't CONTINUE, because the player can't move. THAT'S the reason. It's more of a practical rule in that sense, but that's besides the point. U have to attack the king, not just trap all his pieces!

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Oct 4, 2017

0

#292

TitanChess666 wrote:

Why the haters? This is just somebody trying to state their opinion! And you have absolutely no respect for that! I am not saying that critique is bad, just do in a more disciplined way, not "That's a dumb idea" or "It doesn't make sense."

What? I'm not hating him for thinking this. I'm saying it's incorrect reasoning. I'm not trying to put him down. Where did I do that? And if it doesn't make sense, there's nothing wrong with me saying that. If I don't understand something, it's normal to say "that doesn't make sense" or incorrect reasoning..etc. Read some of the other threads on this forum-People saying things like someone should be killed if they play a certain opening? All I said was it doesn't make sense, and it's true, it doesn't. Did nothing wrong here.

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Oct 30, 2017

0

#293

Dodger111 wrote:

EndgameStudy wrote:

Rasta_Jay wrote:

"In my view, calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents the ultimate zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken" (GM Kaufman 2009).

Stalemate should be a draw because your opponent forced a position where u can't attack him. U need to trap and kill, not just trap.

Uhhhh....isn't checkmate just trapping the King?

NO because u are ATTACKING the king at the same time.

\

Minarima

Oct 30, 2017

0

#294

Don’t forget that stalemates occur/ have occurred in real life wars and battles. For example when a losing army is able to fortress itself within a castle/stronghold and have enough supplies to outlast a siege etc.

MEXIMARTINI

Oct 30, 2017

0

#295

Minarima wrote:

Don’t forget that stalemates occur/ have occurred in real life wars and battles. For example when a losing army is able to fortress itself within a castle/stronghold and have enough supplies to outlast a siege etc.

This is a good point. I'm pretty sure I had a stalemate con mi Ruca the other night.

We were both having a conversation where we were disagreeing with each other, (not fighting) but then we ended up passing out together.

I'd consider that a stalemate.

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Oct 30, 2017

0

#296

Minarima wrote:

Don’t forget that stalemates occur/ have occurred in real life wars and battles. For example when a losing army is able to fortress itself within a castle/stronghold and have enough supplies to outlast a siege etc.

Were just talking about the logic of the rule, not real-life apllications. Stalemate should be a draw because u didn't accomplish the objective of the game, so you shouldn't WIN. Some claim it is a forfeit by the stalemated player cause he can't make a legal move, but not being able to make a move shouldn't be a loss in chess. It's hard to explain in words, but u get the gist, right?

lfPatriotGames

Oct 30, 2017

0

#297

EndgameStudy wrote:

Minarima wrote:

Don’t forget that stalemates occur/ have occurred in real life wars and battles. For example when a losing army is able to fortress itself within a castle/stronghold and have enough supplies to outlast a siege etc.

Were just talking about the logic of the rule, not real-life apllications. Stalemate should be a draw because u didn't accomplish the objective of the game, so you shouldn't WIN. Some claim it is a forfeit by the stalemated player cause he can't make a legal move, but not being able to make a move shouldn't be a loss in chess. It's hard to explain in words, but u get the gist, right?

It might be a logical rule, but some people will not respond to logic. Like the guy in the other thread. He has his mind made up and he wont change. You (and I) have our minds made up, and it wont change. If the objective of the argument is to convince the other side, you are in stalemate. Neither side winning, but neither side losing. Ask him which side should forfeit in your situation. I know he would say neither because both sides can keep going, but what if one side cant? What if he, for example, permanently loses his internet connection or something. I wonder if he figures that would mean he forfeits and you win.

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Oct 31, 2017

0

#298

The thing is, stalemate being a win IN ITSELF would be logical, but it wouldn't be logical when integrated into the game. People are confusing simple logic with compound logic.

Pashak1989

Oct 31, 2017

0

#299

EndgameStudy escribió:

Ur saying that the side who cannot make a move at all loses? That makes more sense, but it shouldn't win the game. U have to BOTH trap the king, AND check it. U can't just trap it. Also, in those mutual stalemates, the last player to move would win, but if both sides are stalemating, how can u say 1 side won? The main problem with stalemate is that the king is NOT ALLOWED to move into check. Therefore, it is invalid to say that the king could move to a square, and be captured, if the king isn't permitted to make that move. If the king was able to move into check, then u could make stalemate a win. Otherwise, u'd be violating the basic rules in letting the king move into check. Basically, Stalemate is a draw because the game can't CONTINUE, because the player can't move. THAT'S the reason. It's more of a practical rule in that sense, but that's besides the point. U have to attack the king, not just trap all his pieces!

In that diagram not only it should be a loss for black, but the player should be banned from ever playing in chess and should be deported to Samoa or some other island for throwing away an advantage like that.

Having that big advantage and ending up trapping yourself to the point where you can't make any legal moves? Of course it should be a loss!

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Oct 31, 2017

0

#300

And how did white lose every single one of his pieces? He must not be that good either LOL

The point is not being able to make a legal move shouldn't be a loss in chess, not because he can't move, but because he wasn't mated. The goal of chess is checkmate, and since the stalemating player failed to do that, why should he win?