[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Oct 11, 2013 08:27 PM UTC:The main practical consequences of the stalemate rule on the game of Chess are: * KPK can be a drawn end-game. When stalemate is a win, KPK would be an easy win even with a Rook Pawn (when the Pawn is not tactically lost). * KNNK would be a win as well (but should be just as rare as KBNK). * KBPK with Rook Pawn and wrong Bishop would be a win. * KQKP with supported 7th-rank Pawn would be a win even for Rook and Bishop Pawns. I think especially losing the possibility to draw KPK would be a loss to the richness of the game. It is really a very interesting end-game.
Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Oct 11, 2013 08:55 PM UTC:Yes, it does give some interesting endgames. Beyond that, it gives the otherwise losing player something to play for. If the winner isn't careful, it can wind up a draw, and in KPK, as H. G. notes, winning isn't easy ... So, personally, I'm in favor of checkmate/stalemate
It sounds like H.G. Muller is saying there's nothing virtuous in the abstract about declaring stalemate to be a draw, but in the specific case of FIDE it just coincidentally happens to work out to a net positive (mostly because of a couple specific endgames). That implies it might _not_ be a good rule for chess _variants_, even if it works out in orthodox chess--would that be your conclusion? Greg Strong seems to be saying that it's good because it gives the losing player something to aim for. I'm perhaps not a strong enough player to judge, but that seems questionable to me; how often does the stalemate rule really alter your decision to resign? And are those endgames really more interesting than resigning and starting a new game?
H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, Oct 12, 2013 07:35 PM UTC:> That implies it might _not_ be a good rule for chess _variants_, even if it works out in orthodox chess--would that be your conclusion? That depends entirely on the variant. In Chu Shogi stalemate is a win. But with forwardly capturing Shogi Pawns you can never stop promotion anyway, even with the aid of stalemate. (OTOH +P = Gold has no mating potential on 12x12 anyway!) As soon as you have a FIDE King and Shatranj Pawns that promote to a piece with mating potential, KPK is much more interesting with stalemate. And many variants have that.. > how often does the stalemate rule really alter your decision to resign? Well, even when badly behind, I certainly would not resign if the opponent had the wrong color Bishop for his Rook Pawn. I can afford sacrifice myself down to -4, and still have a draw. You smell the draw, as it were. Even more so when he has two Knights. Even with just K+R against his K+2N+2P (nominally 3-4 Pawns behind, as N=3.25, and advanced connected passers might get a huge bonus, sacrificing my Rook for his two remaining Pawns will give me an easy draw. Which I would not have without stalemate. Normally being 3 Pawns behind and no Pawns yourself is a pretty good reason for resigning! Note that no pair of two equal simple (= Betza atomic) leapers has mating potential against a FIDE King. So situations of this kind are actually quite universal across Chess variants.
5 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Currently, a stalemate in Chess is widely recognized as a draw.
Why?
My understanding is that, originally, Chess had no prohibition against moving into check, so "stalemate" didn't exist. The rule against moving into check was added to prevent interesting games from ending early due to a dumb mistake. (I personally think this is a dubious justification--there are many blunders that could lead to the swift and unexpected end of an interesting game, and my gut feeling is that an opponent should be allowed to retract any of them in a casual game and none of them in a tournament or other serious game. I don't see why this specific blunder should be enshrined in rule.)
That changed the win condition from "capturing the king" to "checkmate", and as a side effect created the possibility of "stalemate". But the situations that we now call "stalemate" would have been wins for the side delivering the stalemate before the above rule modification, and the above rule modification was not (so far as I know) specifically targeted at such situations, so it's not clear why it ought to change how the game is resolved in those situations.
Wikipedia has a brief history of the stalemate rule, and points out various people who have argued for or against changing the current rule. But I'm looking for a game design reason, rather than a historical or political reason--is the game BETTER because stalemate is a draw rather than a win? Why or why not?