13 Sep '12 14:11>
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.