Stalemate should = WIN

Stalemate becoming a draw needs to be removed. It's a cheap gimmick that only allows inferior players to deus ex machina what would of otherwise been a loss from a superior player, into another boring draw.... I didn't even know this rule existed when I first started playing and it's making it hard for me to continue learning and playing.

The endgame is always extremely irritating because of this. I know some people are going to say "get good, learn the rules, this is a beginner problem only".

Yeah well. I can choose to TOLERATE this terrible rule, or quit, but it shouldn't be like that. Give players the choice on what ruleset they want to play....

The rules of stalemate are there to

- provide the losing side with an opportunity to play on

- ensure that the side attempting checkmate does not slack .

These rules have been there for years and is not a Chess.com rule - it's an FIDE rule.

It would lead to multiple, inconsistent rules across games, so it would not be likely possible online.

However, you could create a group over-the-board and decide on a "whoever stalemates the other player wins" setting.

Chess is a war simulator game. Why should I give my overwhelmingly defeated opponent "space"... Go in for the kill and end the game... Instead of a boring end game dance-off where instead of I went for the kill. The god watching the battle will step in and end the battle in the draw. When in reality if that didn't happen, I would of won.

It would be easy to implement online, just as there are play sliders for what options I want in multiplayer, just add another one for "stalemate = win", it can be a separate ranked leaderboard that doesn't contribute to the "regular" ranked ELO.

"These rules have been there for years and is not a Chess.com rule - it's an FIDE rule."

Checkmating = win has existed infinitely longer than Checkmate = draw.

Checkmate has always been a win - this is undisputed.

.

Stalemate, on the other hand, is currently not. However, it used to be a win for the stalemating player at some point - and that was likely before most of us in this 21st century existed.

.

Unlike war games (where it's probably doom for the "stalemated" party), chess has been set to this rule for many years. I presume the main reason for this is to allow the losing side to play on, but you can search this up to find the actual reason why it has been agreed (by a team of FIDE members) that stalemate is a draw,

.

Chess.com follows the FIDE rule partially and the USCF rule partially, but both the FIDE and USCF rules have stated a draw result for stalemates.

A lot of endgame theories will change with the abolishment of stalemate or the change of stalemate into a win for the stalemating player.

.

It does get frustrating when you are on the winning side and suddenly receive a pop up message. This is especially true at your rating category where one side will end up having a superior material advantage over the other and then the winning side accidentally stalemates the losing side.

.

In higher rated game plays, however, where pressing for a win is much more difficult, stalemate rates are lower and the stalemating ideas are usually more complex. Some players at these levels do lookout for stalemate opportunities and actively seek them rather than hope for the stalemate to come.

The most basic chess rules got fixed hundreds of years ago.

They ain't gonna change just because some clown is too lazy to learn how to mate with a queen without stalemating.

It is just a rule of this game. We cannot change the rules when we don't like them.

And replaced with what, exactly? And why?

During various points in history and at different parts of the world, stalemate has been:

1. A win for the player who got stalemated.
2. A loss for the player who got stalemated.
3. An illegal move (ie. you can't make the move that makes the game a stalemate).
4. A half-win for the player who delivers stalemate.
5. A forfeiture of the turn of the player who got stalemated (ie. that player essentially skips his turn).
6. A draw.

Which one of those is your favorite and why, exactly? Why is your choice better than the others?

The possibility of stalemate drawing the game adds its own tactical depth to the game: You always have to take it into account when reading ahead and making your move. It's also a defensive tactic: Moves can be made that take advantage of the fact that if your opponent makes the wrong response it will be stalemate.

It's not much different from eg. not being able to castle if in check or if (essentially) the king would pass through check, or if the king has moved: It's a rule that needs to be taken into account and can be used as a tactic (eg. there are many situations where you can stop your opponent from castling by eg. having your bishop stare at the square besides the opposing king).

rules always change, and chess rules were changed to ADD stalemate = draw.

The idea of a draw, with draw basically meaning both sides are equal. Is simply wrong with simple logic. I don't care if stalemate = half ELO gain, full ELO gain, or whatever... If you played well enough to trap the enemy king and he cannot move anymore without being checked, well then how else can that be anything but a win?

I don't get the concept that you play the game a certain way, with the entire concept of the game being a war game between two equal sides, and the side with the best material advantage + tactics = win. If we apply chess to a real life battle. Nobody (including the FIDE GODS) would magically come save the king if he trapped himself through poor play, but with the stalemate rules, we REWARD and incentivize poor play.... "Whelp my opponent is inferior, better suicide my pieces and position myself for a stalemate draw, the fide gods will save me"..

Just plain stupid.

At best for a compromise. If a king cannot move into check because it would be an illegal move, than too, it should be an illegal move that makes the game a stalemate.

Or, alternatively, you were not good enough to actually checkmate your opponent, and instead you caused a situation where your opponent has no legal moves and thus the game ends in a draw due to it not being able to be continued with any legal moves.

You win by delivering checkmate. You don't win by halting the game due to lack of legal moves. If you miss a win because of playing that poorly, you deserve the draw. (Some even could say you deserve a loss, and that was one of the interpretations in the past in some places.)

There's already a variant setting when if someone stalemated then someone won/lost

Stalemate = the king polically outwitted his assassin's

dues ex machina argument

YOU played bad enough to allow a stalemate

they didnt play bad; if you had checkmated then yes but here THEY played good enough to get a stalemate

also, for every stalemated game there is the side who "sHoUlD hAvE wOn" and then the one who "sHoUlD hAvE lOsT"

why does only the first one complain

this is a bit weird... maybe you all are too competitive...

if the second one complained also i would be fine but here you are all just being sore draw-ers

and the idea that all draws are boring........ IS THE DUMBEST IDEA I HAVE EVER HEARD

you cant just go "ok one side won its a very interesting game" because it couldve been a mismatch, forfeit, or the fools mate

in other sports, the closer a game the better

idk why in chess it is not the same

I agree should be removed as rule

Here's how this goes.

Novice players dislike the stalemate rule, because they do not understand it and often mess up a win because of it.

More advanced beginners don't care about the rule, because they have learnt how to checkmate without stalemating the opponent.

Intermediate and more advanced players like the rule because they are starting to realize how important and useful the rule is and how much beauty it adds to the game. King vs. King+pawn endgames, King vs. King+Rook pawn+wrong colored Bishop, even some King vs. King+Queen+pawn on the 7th rank endgames can be drawn by the weaker side because of this rule and this adds a lot of depth to the game. The winning side must consider these things before they end up giving up the win and the losing side can try to use these resources to draw. It makes the game a lot more beautiful than a dumbed down version of the game would be without the stalemate rule.

Do not think of it as the weaker sides King being trapped waiting to get slaughtered. Think of it as a trap the weaker sides King set up, and into which the stronger sides army fell, getting immobilized, unable to move and continue fighting.