2 edits
Originally posted by ogbName one!
many GM's believe this rule should be eliminated. Should be a win..and I agree.
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.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by HabeascorpAIUI 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.
Someone asked me this one. I have lots of pieces and opponent only has a king. Can I still resign to lose?
- Joined
- 21 Aug 15
- Moves
- 928
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemGM Nigel Short says that stalemate should be a win for the side giving it.
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.
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.
Originally posted by SpectatorsNow 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.
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by SpectatorsBut 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🙂
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.