Stalemate should = WIN
Sort:
XDRattlebird wrote:
Stalemate has to = win because he didn’t lose!
SOUNDS SO STUPID. Enough Woke Chess nonesense
White has 55% win rate while Black only has 45%, even though stalemate is a rule of chess and it shows in a broad daylight that the game is not balanced. Imagine that at perfect plays, most of the games results in stalemate then suddenly a rule change happens removing stalemate as a draw. Most of the draws from these plays will go to White's favor which worsens the game balance much more. Do you still want to remove this rule?
"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."
Youre using this as an excuse to not learn and grow. If you cannot win a won position, then your opponent deserves the draw. The problem is you. Not your opponent or a rule.
FaithKetoCoffee wrote:
"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."
Youre using this as an excuse to not learn and grow. If you cannot win a won position, then your opponent deserves the draw. The problem is you. Not your opponent or a rule.
But learning is very hard. Learning how to checkmate with a queen would take at least 10 minutes. It is much easier and faster to google and post some nonsense "chess memes".
I also want to add that if you will remove stalemate, most of the time there will be a piece beside a king will remain. Which due to the removal of the stalemate rule, insufficient material rule will also be abolish automatically. Even though it is hard to make a checkmate as long as you have an extra piece beside your king, you just have to flag your opponent that do not have a piece remaining beside their king. It will be considered a win automatically.
I am sorry, we are not using fide rules on this site. I forgot that we are using USCF rules.
"Chess is a war simulator game. "
Nope. Chess was a war simulator game in its origin, but it has completely into something completely different, Just think: In actual war, do the two sides take turns? Of course not.
Stalemate is an excellent rule that requires the superior side to play carefully and accurately right to the end, and allows the inferior side chances for a miraculous escape.
By the way, you might get the point that if stalemate is removed, you can still win with a knight or a bishop as long as you cornered the opponent king. As I said, this rule removal will favor White ruining the game balance even worse.
May 2, 2023
0
#31
Shlttens kirjoitti:
in this situation the black king is not actually trapped, it was actually a clever tactical move to trap white! Black is the supurior player. White player is much worse for assuming this play is good
You do realize that the position in the picture is a checkmate? White wins according to the rules. The black King is in check by so many pieces it is hard to count them.
The black King would have to not be in check, for it to be a stalemate.
Skill issue.
May 2, 2023
0
#33
Shlttens wrote:
in this situation the black king is not actually trapped, it was actually a clever tactical move to trap white! Black is the supurior player. White player is much worse for assuming this play is good
As said, that is checkmate because the king is being attacked (not only would it be checkmate, it's also a completely illegal position). A stalemate would be something like this:
White just played Qf7, which stalemates the king. The reason it doesn't win is because, even though black can't move anywhere, white is not attacking the king.
There are variants on the Variants server that have a different rule for stalemate. If you don't like the rules of normal chess, just go play one of those variants.
May 2, 2023
0
#34
TL;DR for most other comments: if you stalemate your opponent up material, you're just bad
May 2, 2023
0
#35
OP, with all due respect, you need to learn more about chess before trying to change it.
This suggestion would impact chess much more than you realize. Basically a bunch of endgames as they are today would be changed, and it would make endgame play more straightforward which is a bad thing.
One pawn up would mean much more than it does today.
You would completely destroy a well balanced game.
And all of that because you didn't know how to avoid stalemate with a winning position on the board.
May 2, 2023
0
#36
Shlttens wrote:
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....
get good. learn the rules. take an extra second before you move. Stalemate should not be a win.
Stop crying
magipi wrote:
FaithKetoCoffee wrote:
"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."
Youre using this as an excuse to not learn and grow. If you cannot win a won position, then your opponent deserves the draw. The problem is you. Not your opponent or a rule.
But learning is very hard. Learning how to checkmate with a queen would take at least 10 minutes. It is much easier and faster to google and post some nonsense "chess memes".
Welcome to the forums!
May 2, 2023
0
#39
Shlttens wrote:
The idea of a draw, with draw basically meaning both sides are equal. Is simply wrong with simple logic. I don't care if... 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. ...
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.
First of all, your suggestion is completely logical and acceptable. The only problem is you cannot compel chess.com to change their ruleset based on your personal preference. Maybe--as you mentioned earlier--a separate ELO rating system would be an idea.
Secondly, using this logic, that if one side is winning in material, the game should be a win for them (as in a real war), then, in the case where White is crushing in material/position etc., but blunders back-rank mate, should it still be considered a loss? To be fair, White completely outplayed his opponent, but still, there is still a queen, rooks and many other pieces to avenge the back-rank-mated king. It just doesn't make too much sense to say that a player is winning/losing based on their material advantage/disadvantage.
Also, there a many times that the player with more material gets stalemated. Other rulesets use different outcomes if one player can't make any legal moves (as mentioned above), but the one chess.com uses is very standard and accepted by many. You still have every right to express your opinion, though.
RamBakhi wrote:
Shlttens wrote:
The idea of a draw, with draw basically meaning both sides are equal. Is simply wrong with simple logic. I don't care if... 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. ...
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.
First of all, your suggestion is completely logical and acceptable. The only problem is you cannot compel chess.com to change their ruleset based on your personal preference. Maybe--as you mentioned earlier--a separate ELO rating system would be an idea.
Secondly, using this logic, that if one side is winning in material, the game should be a win for them (as in a real war), then, in the case where White is crushing in material/position etc., but blunders back-rank mate, should it still be considered a loss? To be fair, White completely outplayed his opponent, but still, there is still a queen, rooks and many other pieces to avenge the back-rank-mated king. It just doesn't make too much sense to say that a player is winning/losing based on their material advantage/disadvantage.
Also, there a many times that the player with more material gets stalemated. Other rulesets use different outcomes if one player can't make any legal moves (as mentioned above), but the one chess.com uses is very standard and accepted by many. You still have every right to express your opinion, though.
Material advantage is just the means to the end. A tactically superior player can easily win against an overwhelmingly material advantaged opponent.
I know my posts most likely won't change anything, but I am expressing myself irrespective. IF everyone who wanted to rule change kept quiet because "nothing will change", well then for sure nothing will change... You miss all the shots you don't take after all.