H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, May 29, 2020 05:17 PM UTC:
Ah, I overlooked the addendum. So I guess what was really meant is "stalemate is a win". In fact stalemate is far more frequent here than in orthodox Chess. In the latter case the King has to be robbed of its legal moves by attacking all squares adjacent to it. Here you don't have to attack anything, as the King has no moves to begin with.
I guess you could also say that baring the King(s) is a win. But that is not the only way to get a stalemate. One or two Kings could block all moves of one, or even two Pawns.
Black to move is stalemated!
[Edit] This was very wrong; I failed to notice the Pawns also have backward moves. So I suppose the only stalemates are those where you have nothing but Kings.
Ah, I overlooked the addendum. So I guess what was really meant is "stalemate is a win". In fact stalemate is far more frequent here than in orthodox Chess. In the latter case the King has to be robbed of its legal moves by attacking all squares adjacent to it. Here you don't have to attack anything, as the King has no moves to begin with.
I guess you could also say that baring the King(s) is a win. But that is not the only way to get a stalemate. One or two Kings could block all moves of one, or even two Pawns.
Black to move is stalemated!
[Edit] This was very wrong; I failed to notice the Pawns also have backward moves. So I suppose the only stalemates are those where you have nothing but Kings.