Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 20 Jun '17 23:05
    If a King is cornered but not in check...and he trys to moved but he will be in check is that checkmate ?
  2. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    21 Jun '17 00:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by murraywash
    If a King is cornered but not in check...and he trys to moved but he will be in check is that checkmate ?
    No. The King must be in check. If you have no legal moves, but are NOT in check, the game is drawn by stalemate.
  3. Subscriber ogb
    21 Jun '17 23:43
    many GM's believe this rule should be eliminated. Should be a win..and I agree.
  4. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    22 Jun '17 06:00 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by ogb
    many GM's believe this rule should be eliminated. Should be a win..and I agree.
    Name one!

    Elimination of stalemate as a draw would ruin chess. For starters, White wins this without the need for "opposition":



    So now, an extra pawn is a larger advantage. Goodbye, endgame nuances, speculative sacrifices and daring gambits. Hello, miserly play-it-safe pawn hoarding.
  5. Subscriber 64squaresofpain On Vacation
    The drunk knight
    23 Jun '17 01:07
    Exactly, the possibility of stalemate has led to interesting battles and swindles even at top level.

    If you're winning, but allow a stalemate, you don't deserve the win.
  6. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    23 Jun '17 06:07
    Originally posted by murraywash
    If a King is cornered but not in check...and he trys to moved but he will be in check is that checkmate ?
    What you describe is called stalemate, a draw.
  7. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    23 Jun '17 12:24
    Originally posted by murraywash
    If a King is cornered but not in check...and he trys to moved but he will be in check is that checkmate ?
    You've been here 10 years and you don't know that by now?
  8. 24 Jun '17 14:19
    Someone asked me this one. I have lots of pieces and opponent only has a king. Can I still resign to lose?
  9. Subscriber venda
    Dave
    24 Jun '17 19:59
    Originally posted by Habeascorp
    Someone asked me this one. I have lots of pieces and opponent only has a king. Can I still resign to lose?
    Yes.
  10. 25 Jun '17 07:47
    Originally posted by Habeascorp
    Someone asked me this one. I have lots of pieces and opponent only has a king. Can I still resign to lose?
    AIUI in those circumstances you can't lose on time -- if you drop through your clock, it's a draw, because your opponent could not possibly checkmate even if you blunder massively. But if you yourself choose to resign, you can.
  11. 26 Jun '17 17:26
    Why not call checkmate "freshmate" or alternatively, call stalemate "Checklessmate?"
  12. 26 Jun '17 23:38
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    Name one!

    Elimination of stalemate as a draw would ruin chess. For starters, White wins this without the need for "opposition":

    [fen]8/8/8/8/3k4/3P4/3K4/8[/fen]

    So now, an extra pawn is a larger advantage. Goodbye, endgame nuances, speculative sacrifices and daring gambits. Hello, miserly play-it-safe pawn hoarding.
    GM Nigel Short says that stalemate should be a win for the side giving it.

    He's said that all stalemate accomplishes is to make a very drawish game even more drawish.

    Also: "The King is lost on the next move after it is stalemated, so it is entirely consistent with the aim of the game - capturing the king." He said this on his player's page on chessgames.com.
  13. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    27 Jun '17 04:58
    Originally posted by Spectators
    GM Nigel Short says that stalemate should be a win for the side giving it.

    He's said that all stalemate accomplishes is to make a very drawish game even more drawish.

    Also: "The King is lost on the next move after it is stalemated, so it is entirely consistent with the aim of the game - capturing the king." He said this on his player's page on chessgames.com.
    Now that you mention it, I think that's right. I still am not sure he has really thought it through. The loss of nuance, for example, probably outweighs the reduction in draws. Really, it is only at the super-GM level that the game is that drawish.
  14. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Jun '17 12:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Spectators
    GM Nigel Short says that stalemate should be a win for the side giving it.

    He's said that all stalemate accomplishes is to make a very drawish game even more drawish.

    Also: "The King is lost on the next move after it is stalemated, so it is entirely consistent with the aim of the game - capturing the king." He said this on his player's page on chessgames.com.
    But stalemate means the king is only quarantined, sequestered, not captured. You have to have a weapon at the ready to stab the sucker if you want to count it as a win. We're KILLING the king here, not sending it to Alcapulco to retire
  15. 28 Jun '17 20:03
    Napoleon was after all exiled to Elba with no men and made a come back! (but didn't from St Helens.)