Why stalemate should be a win.
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Jul 18, 2014
0
#2
I'm not saying this is a horrible idea, but I feel like you used all the straw man arguments for those against having stalemate be a win. Here are three other reasons I can think of.
In conventional war where there are two clear cut sides, it was proper to let the monarch of whichever side lost surrender and flee, rather than be killed. Of course, bloodthirsty rulers and personal vendettas prevented this much of the time, but you get the idea. Still, this doesn't explain why stalemate should be a draw, but it at least provides a reason against capturing the enemy king.
The main reason why stalemate is preserved is that it adds strategic flair to the game for both sides. The winning side is left thinking at least in part till the very end to avoid stalemate, and the losing side tries to achieve it, sometimes brilliantly as seen in a few games/puzzles out there.
Stalemate also adds a spark of hope to many, driving them to play to the end rather than resign. This may be a pro or a con depending upon how you look at it, because on one hand it saves both players time, but on the other hand, a fully completed game feels more whole, and, in my humble opinion, satisfying. This isn't to say that I personally don't resign in games though. *contradicting myself as usual >.<*
Before about 1800, stalemate WAS a win for the person giving it.
It should have stayed that way.
Making it so that Stalemate would provide a win removes skill from the game. If you can't put your opponent in checkmate, but instead stalemate them, how do you deserve the win?
Yes one side can get the Stalemate through tactical means sometimes as noted by SpiritLancer, but the player who should be winning should have to see that possibility. If they don't, the player who found the stalemate possibility and obtained it deserves the half point.
Jul 18, 2014
0
#5
I think stalemate should be a win for the player who got stalemated, because his opponent just didn't get it right.
Jul 18, 2014
0
#6
I am in favor of changing stalemates to a win for the stalemating player because its the purest form of zugswang - not only is every move a decrease in position, but is catastrophically so.
Mostly though, I'd like to see it change because it would dramatically alter endgame theory when there aren't many pieces left over. I'm not sure if this will add more options or not, but I like the idea of there being something new for theorists to study (e.g. king and pawn vs king endgame).
Maybe some theorists need to get together to see if there are more strategies to be had (for both sides) by changing stalemate to a win, vs the current system. I'm not sure which would be better for the game.
More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#Effect_on_endgame_theory
I think a much better alternative to changing the Stalemate rule is to just adjust the scoring of such games, 0.75 points for the Stalemater and 0.25 for the Stalemated player. This awards the Stalemater for being the better player while awarding the Stalemated player for holding out well enough not to actually lose the game itself, although being the weaker of the two. A Stalemate game isn't the same as a drawn game in my opinion as one side was better than the other just not enough to win the game outright and the scoring should reflect that.
im confuesed
How exactly does stalemating your opponent show that you are a better player? Also, what if the position is mutual stalemate?
Stalemate has no reason to be anything other than a draw.
timurtolibayev wrote:
Hey guys. I heard many times about the endless discussions on stalemate. One thinks that "Stalemate must be a win for the player who made the last move before the stalemating position".
Here are some arguements against of the statement above:
1) Why should stalemate be a win for "opponent A", if there are no legal moves for "opponent B"?
2) The task for "opponent A" is to checkmate the "opponent B". He failed to do that. So why give him a full point?
3) For hundreds of years stalemate was considered as a draw. Why change anything?
And here is my oppinion about that:
Stalemate must be a win for the player who made the last move before the stalemating position, beacuse:
Guys, let's not forget about the main idea of the person who created chess. He wanted one of the opponents to crush, destroy, kill, demolish the enemy king. Or the simplest word - to capture him.
So let's play the game of chess where you aim is not to checkmate the enemy king, but to just capture it. The rules of this new game is absolutely the same as if it was normal chess, but one change: "The player who captures the enemy king first - wins the game. Let's forget about checkmate.
Let's see another examples.
3.Qxf7 Qxf2 Qxe8 1-0
White captured the Black king first, so there is no time for Black queen to take on e1, because her husband is already gone.
With these new rules, chess is more logical and pure game. Everything is understandable.
In the other words:
"The stalemate must be a win for the player who made the last move before the stalemating position"
Zigwurst wrote:
How exactly does stalemating your opponent show that you are a better player? Also, what if the position is mutual stalemate?
Stalemate has no reason to be anything other than a draw.
Almost every Stalemate position has one side with more material and "better" just not enough to win. In mutual Stalemate, sure equal scoring, but when people talk about Stalemate they are usually referring to one side putting the other side into a Stalemate- King and Pawn against King for example. One side is clearly better than the other in such positions and the scoring should reflect that.
Since stalemate and mutual stalemate are the same thing, how would there be a rule difference? Also, what if one side is "better" in mutual stalemate?
imo the only people that want stalemate counted as a win are those that are mad about a draw.
Jul 18, 2014
0
#13
I think stalemate should force an immediate Blitz decision game, where the stalemated player has to stand on one leg during the whole game.
Jul 18, 2014
0
#14
I think the stalemated player should win, the other guy is obviously a berk.
Zigwurst wrote:
Since stalemate and mutual stalemate are the same thing, how would there be a rule difference? Also, what if one side is "better" in mutual stalemate?
imo the only people that want stalemate counted as a win are those that are mad about a draw.
If they're like me, they're only mad about the draw because they don't believe it should be a draw.
Jul 18, 2014
0
#17
timurtolibayev wrote:
If someone somehow got into a position like that, they deserve to be stalemated XD
I hope it was, otherwise that means other people have bad luck with thinking too!
