Maybe it teaches us the lesson that, as in life, the game is only finished, when the king is really dead. And even at the very end with a far superior position, your ego can still blind you to the stalemate...
I drew a few games by sacrificing pieces on purpose in order to get a stalemate. It's a great feeling: to loose pieces on purpose in order to prevent a loss. And I got surprised a few times, and was devastated to "loose" the winning game to a stalemate... the rule certainly adds to the complexity of chess.
On the other hand, stalemate means that you have encircled your opponent so that his next move must be a king sacrifice and you should win the game... but sometimes life is not fair...
stalemate should not be a draw
Sort:
BOYonFICS wrote:
Maybe it teaches us the lesson that, as in life, the game is only finished, when the king is really dead. And even at the very end with a far superior position, your ego can still blind you to the stalemate...
I drew a few games by sacrificing pieces on purpose in order to get a stalemate. It's a great feeling: to loose pieces on purpose in order to prevent a loss. And I got surprised a few times, and was devastated to "loose" the winning game to a stalemate... the rule certainly adds to the complexity of chess.
On the other hand, stalemate means that you have encircled your opponent so that his next move must be a king sacrifice and you should win the game... but sometimes life is not fair...
I don't get it. When you run out of legal moves, you can't just make an illegal move. How is that not fair?
TheBlunderfulPlayer wrote:
I don't get it. When you run out of legal moves, you can't just make an illegal move. How is that not fair?
Chuck chess. Consider that you're in a real battle field with real soldiers and real weapons. You're king is trapped, what would happen then..?
MikeCrockett wrote:
lol I wondered if anyone would even notice how silly the suggestion really was. all people would do is negotiate a draw and each player would gain a half point. no one said anything. :-) on a different thread I had suggested 2 for a win 1.5 for a stale win 0.5 for a draw and 0.25 stale loss which I think is a better version.
If this were done (I'm hoping it never is) it would be better if the points awarded were lower...
Say:
1.00 points for a win
0.06 points for winning by stalemate
0.05 points for a draw
0.03 points for losing by stalemate
0.00 points for a loss.
It might be necessary to adjust it though... just to make sure that if a player wins every single one of his games by stalemate they still end up with less points than anyone who managed to get a real win. 
I understand your point, but it's different in chess. There should a difference between having no legal moves while in check and having no legal moves while not in check.
If your opponent manages to get a stalemate you didn't play well. Most of times it is possible to avoid a stalemate if you are careful
when your opponent keeps playing and doesnt break the rules, if you can't checkmate, you can't win, it's that simples.
Lasker1900 wrote:
Boy, what a lot of bizarre and complicated solutions to a problem that doesn't exist!
Are you reffering to me Lasker? 
Grace-Ventura wrote:
if you can't checkmate, you can't win, it's that simples.
Not true , if your opponent resigns you win .
stop trolling me, Reb. what I said is true. if your opponent plays on, you have to do the do.
TheBlunderfulPlayer a écrit :
I understand your point, but it's different in chess. There should a difference between having no legal moves while in check and having no legal moves while not in check.
But there is a difference !
aln67 wrote:
TheBlunderfulPlayer a écrit :
I understand your point, but it's different in chess. There should a difference between having no legal moves while in check and having no legal moves while not in check.
But there is a difference !
I was responding to BOYonFICS. Look at his post on the previous page and you'll get what I mean.
Oct 25, 2015
0
#34
If you can't do the do in the dew when the due dew is due then do it when it's due, or say to yourself, "I Can't Go For That (No Can do)".
Wow!
If the opponent hasnt lost yet, then he is not forced to. A stalemate basically freezes the whole game, and it is a draw because the victim is unable to move, but the attacker could had done otherwise, so it's also poor planning.
I think Philidor said that if there is a stalemate, the one who caused it should be given a loss and the one who maintained it should be awarded the victory.
In my opinion, stalemate should be a half-win; the one delivering the stalemate getting half a point and the one getting stalemated getting nothing.
The same Philidor who stated "the Queens are the soul of the game"?
So should you for being sarcastic!!😉
Ouch!