Stalemate should = WIN
Sort:
MattDIV
May 2, 2023
0
#41
A Stalemate is not a win, plain and simple. If you don’t know how to checkmate someone you need to work on your endgame skills. If anything a stalemate is more of a win from the weaker side than the stronger given the stronger side bungled the mate.
May 2, 2023
0
#42
Shlttens kirjoitti:
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.
A tactically superior player should easily be able to avoid stalemating their opponent with a huge material advantage also...
May 3, 2023
0
#43
You are not the first one to complain about stalemate being a draw. It's not gonna change. You are wasting your time here.
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....
You should remove yourself! If you can't abide by the rules, form your own club.
May 3, 2023
0
#45
Shlttens wrote:
Well this does violate the rules as you can't have this number of queens in a battle, in regular chess game there are 8 pawns.. You have developed 6 pawns and kept 8 others? how?
May 3, 2023
0
#46
MattDIV wrote:
A Stalemate is not a win, plain and simple. If you don’t know how to checkmate someone you need to work on your endgame skills. If anything a stalemate is more of a win from the weaker side than the stronger given the stronger side bungled the mate.
In real this is not a beautiful part of chess, where saving and memorizing is more required than strategies. Especially while most end games comes at a lack of remaining time so you barely can take care of your pieces than caring about your enemy's available moves!!!
Stalemate honestly changes the whole game to make it so that even if then opponent is winning you can still try to fight back also it’s funny
Burdbraine wrote:
Stalemate honestly changes the whole game to make it so that even if then opponent is winning you can still try to fight back also it’s funny
I have a dream. That one day every person in Chess will control their own destiny. A game for the truly free, dammit. A game of action, not stale rules, ruled by strength, not stalemates!
(before reading this, check Shlttens second meme in the first page 13th comment. my potato computer cant put the image) bruv where is white's king. black won there. second of all if you have 7 queens (hopefully one of them was at the begging) 8 pawns (one of them should be promoted because it is in the 8th rank 4 rooks and 4 knights. to get all of that you would need to promote 10 pawns. then even if it was legally allowed to have all of those pieces in the chess board, it would be checkmate by three moves ago
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....
So you say your difficulties to mate with K+Q vs K outweigh centuries of chess history? Some people are right. If you learn more about the game, you'll get to understand that removing the stalemate will not just remove a gimmick, but also change the entire game.
and no it is stupid because the person who was losing was just lucky that the other side blundered a stalemate and after all, chess is no luck game
May 4, 2023
0
#53
the_random_guy8117 kirjoitti:
and no it is stupid because the person who was losing was just lucky that the other side blundered a stalemate and after all, chess is no luck game
Stalemate is not luck, unless it happens by accident in a beginner vs. beginner game. And even then it is questionable whether it is luck or just that the player with the material advantage was such a weak player that they stalemated the opponent and did not deserve the win. One does not deserve to win at chess before they can perform a checkmate afterall.
There are endgames like the most basic K vs. K + pawn endgame where the weaker side has the opposition and can draw because of that. It is not luck and the weaker side does need to know what they are doing in order to be able to draw.
There are a lot more endgames like this, but I am not going to try to list them here.
May 4, 2023
0
#54
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....
No, the hard facts are only beginners whine about this. There is a true art to stalemate.
I actually had this position against a master over the board in March.
He played 1.f5??
This allowed 1...Rxc7!! and the game was drawn. He obviously did not take the Rook. He played 2.Rg8 Rc2 (threat of 3...Rxg2). I think he went 3.Kh3, but once he played g4, the King was stalemated again and I had what is known as the Eternal Rook Draw where I check the White King until he takes the Rook and stalemate.
In fact, I think the moves were 3.Kh3 Rf2 4.g4 Rf3+ 5.Kg2 Rg3+ 6.Kf2 Rf3+ and White then offered the draw seeing I just contine to check on the 3rd rank.
Stalemate is an art, not a cheap trick.
Habanababananero wrote:
the_random_guy8117 kirjoitti:
and no it is stupid because the person who was losing was just lucky that the other side blundered a stalemate and after all, chess is no luck game
Stalemate is not luck, unless it happens by accident in a beginner vs. beginner game. And even then it is questionable whether it is luck or just that the player with the material advantage was such a weak player that they stalemated the opponent and did not deserve the win. One does not deserve to win at chess before they can perform a checkmate afterall.
There are endgames like the most basic K vs. K + pawn endgame where the weaker side has the opposition and can draw because of that. It is not luck and the weaker side does need to know what they are doing in order to be able to draw.
There are a lot more endgames like this, but I am not going to try to list them here.
now that i rethought what you said, you are also right.
7 days ago
0
#57
What a roundabout way to admit that you suck at the game. Cope and seethe 🤷🏻♂️
