Originally posted by GrobzillaThe first position is just to illustrate the strange idea that you can win with only a King. The only 'argument' in it is that this kind of result will be difficult to accept for people used to the current version of chess.
Also, Swissgambit, your two arguments through position are contradictory. In one the stalemate-giver has more material and in the other the stalemate-receiver has more material. You say the rule will favor materialistic play, but as either side can give stalemate regardless of material advantage, how can this be?
But that one position is till moot. White wins no matter the first move.
The first position is not nearly as likely to occur in a game as the second. The first position works only if the last pawn is a Rook pawn, while the second still holds if the pieces are shifted to the right or left; as long as the pawn isn't a Rook pawn.
It is much more likely that the side with more material will give the stalemate instead of receiving it. Thus, the rule favors more materialistic play.
Originally posted by SwissGambit
The first position is just to illustrate the strange idea that you can win with only a King. The only 'argument' in it is that this kind of result will be difficult to accept for people used to the current version of chess.
That's probably true.
The first position is not nearly as likely to occur in a game as the second. The first position works only if the last pawn is a Rook pawn, while the second still holds if the pieces are shifted to the right or left; as long as the pawn isn't a Rook pawn.
It is much more likely that the side with more material will give the stalemate instead of receiving it. Thus, the rule favors more materialistic play.
Also probably true. Is that the end of the game as we know it? I honestly don't know. I sure would like to see several thousand Master games w/the rule change to see if fighting chess goes away. If it does, I can tell you, no matter how logical I might think it is, I won't have it. Tal is my favorite player, after all.
Originally posted by Grobzillamy point about 18 games in 5 years is, how likely is it that you will be stalemated? you have 1 draw Game 5481377 although i would have played on, you must have had your own ideas to take draw, of course you are entitled to have a opinion, non sub or not, its you thats clearly not happy as no one agrees with you, do you want to change the rules of bridge as well?
My as-I-type spellchecker doesn't work in this forum's post editor. Didn't think I needed to put it in Word first to make sure it's up to the RHP forum standards. But seeing as that was one of maybe 3 in many, many words typed, I do wonder if you'll forgive my transgression. Please find it in your heart.
And, yes, 18 games in 5 years. HERE. Played many ...[text shortened]... ck of play on RHP doesn't allow me an opinion. Maybe it's you that needs to settle down.
Originally posted by roma45I've only ever played one or two games where I accidentally stalemated someone in the endgame. I've never been stalemated that I can remember. My style of chess rarely allows for it. "Mate or die" has always been my chess motto. And again, RHP is not the only place I play chess, or have played chess. Plenty more games under the belt.
my point about 18 games in 5 years is, how likely is it that you will be stalemated? you have 1 draw Game 5481377 although i would have played on, you must have had your own ideas to take draw, of course you are entitled to have a opinion, non sub or not, its you thats clearly not happy as no one agrees with you, do you want to change the rules of bridge as well?
But guess what? I'm not arguing for the rule change to affect my chess life alone. I'm arguing for the change solely because I find it illogical, and I hate to see the whole chess world play under it.
I don't mind debating. I fully realize that my opinion on this matter is in the minority. It doesn't mean I'll change it. Unless, of course, someone makes a truly informed and logically clear point that moves me. I can indeed be put off my current opinion. Thank god for that. I'd surely hate to have all the exact same opinions my entire life. Wouldn't you?
And yes, there are Bridge rules I'd like to see changed. I'm not the only one. And we have opposition. And we debate. Frequently. And sometimes the rules change. Even for the better. Sometimes they don't. Life, and the game, carries on. Bridge rules change with greater frequency than Chess. Maybe it's the culture...?
Oh, and I think it's hysterical that you analyzed a patzer's game to see if the draw meant anything or was accurate. I don't know why, it just tickles me. Analyzing any of my games can only lead to ruin. I play the Grob almost exclusively as White, for Pete's sake. LOL
1 edit
Originally posted by GrobzillaI am against changing any rules of normal chess. We have many variant forms of chess for that kind of thing to satisfy you. Make it up as a variant form of chess, if you wish and leave normal chess alone. 😏
Has it ever been explained why I should be responsible for my opponent's legal moves? In no other game/sport that I know of is this a player's responsibility. It seems if you've let yourself out of legal moves, you should be punished in some form. This is why when explaining stalemate to first-timers, they ALWAYS have the "smelling onions" face. Every othe e fashion, but rewards would be changed. It all just seems logical to this patzer.
Originally posted by RJHindsOk, so you're against it; any arguments as to why, except for "I don't like change".
I am against changing any rules of normal chess. We have many variant forms of chess for that kind of thing to satisfy you. Make it up as a variant form of chess, if you wish and leave normal chess alone. 😏
I like to make beautiful things more beautiful, at least from a logical aesthetic. So, no, I don't believe I will leave "normal" chess alone. I will continue to debate until the rule is changed, or my mind is. And that's possible. It's just that nobody has done an excellent job of doing so, yet. The closest has been the point about it might make chess more materialistic and less attacking. I might abide by that if it can be proven.
At the middle/higher levels, things such as perpetual check and sac stalemates add a lot of beauty and tension to the game. You can't just blindly liquidate a material edge into a won game.. every W must be earned.
At the beginner level its more of a "derp, not this again!" with KQ vs K stalemates
😞
btw, as said already the point of the game is to checkmate the enemy king. If you want to change the primary point of the game, then just create a whole new game.
Originally posted by maxlangeWell said
At the middle/higher levels, things such as perpetual check and sac stalemates add a lot of beauty and tension to the game. You can't just blindly liquidate a material edge into a won game.. every W must be earned.
At the beginner level its more of a "derp, not this again!" with KQ vs K stalemates
😞
btw, as said already the point of the game is to c ...[text shortened]... king. If you want to change the primary point of the game, then just create a whole new game.
Originally posted by GrobzillaDude, WTH planet are you from??
Ok, so you're against it; any arguments as to why, except for "I don't like change".
I like to make beautiful things more beautiful, at least from a logical aesthetic. So, no, I don't believe I will leave "normal" chess alone. I will continue to debate until the rule is changed, or my mind is. And that's possible. It's just that nobody has done an excel ...[text shortened]... chess more materialistic and less attacking. I might abide by that if it can be proven.
Originally posted by GrobzillaContinue to debate. Nuts like you supporting rule change are the best argument against it.
Ok, so you're against it; any arguments as to why, except for "I don't like change".
I like to make beautiful things more beautiful, at least from a logical aesthetic. So, no, I don't believe I will leave "normal" chess alone. I will continue to debate until the rule is changed, or my mind is. And that's possible. It's just that nobody has done an excel ...[text shortened]... chess more materialistic and less attacking. I might abide by that if it can be proven.