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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 13 Sep '12 06:10
    Has it ever been explained why I should be responsible for my opponent's legal moves? In no other game/sport that I know of is this a player's responsibility. It seems if you've let yourself out of legal moves, you should be punished in some form. This is why when explaining stalemate to first-timers, they ALWAYS have the "smelling onions" face. Every other game/sport they're familiar with has the logical implication that *I* am not responsible for *your* ability to continue. It's anti-competetive, or, cooperative. The entire game we are at competetive odds, but then, for a moment, it's possible for us to be on the same side, as I now must consider your ability to continue. So, yes, it currently results in a different result, as it is a different situation than mate, but it's just bunk for competitors to ever be cooperative.

    To me, it all seems to stem from the currently immutable rule of a player never moving twice in a row. That is why you don't actually take the King when the opponent is unable to remove check; you just win. What you have done is put the opponent in a position where she no longer has any legal moves (remove check or nothing). The only way this is different from Stalemate is that the King is not in check. The player still has no legal moves, but the King isn't in danger. So, they are different situations and the players should have their scores ajudicated differently. This is why I've changed my mind from stalemate-giver getting a full point to getting something less, but still getting more than stalemate-receiver.

    If they changed the rule so that you took the King when check can not be removed, and the opponent therefore can't make ANY move, thereby moving twice in a row, now the stalemate-giver would simply move twice in a row and the game would not end due to the stalemate, though I believe many, many games would end on the next 2 or so moves, as many, many times the King would be checked & then mated. I fully believe very few would want this to be included in our holy pursuit of Caissa.

    The other currently immutable rule, that if done away with, would also remove a portion of our stalemate problems is the King never being able to move into/through check. I also fully believe very few would want this in our game.

    So, instead of changing those 2 rules, why don't we just change the adjudication of the outcome, and make it something like .75-.25 in favor of the giver? The game will still be played in almost wholly the same fashion, but rewards would be changed. It all just seems logical to this patzer.
  2. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    13 Sep '12 06:15 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Grobzilla
    Has it ever been explained why I should be responsible for my opponent's legal moves? In no other game/sport that I know of is this a player's responsibility. It seems if you've let yourself out of legal moves, you should be punished in some form. This is why when explaining stalemate to first-timers, they ALWAYS have the "smelling onions" face. Every othe e fashion, but rewards would be changed. It all just seems logical to this patzer.

    White just moved - stalemate

    White gets more points from this result? 😕
  3. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    13 Sep '12 06:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Grobzilla
    The game will still be played in almost wholly the same fashion...
    No, this is wrong.

    Your change would make an extra pawn more valuable than it currently is. This will favor a more materialistic approach to the game. Case in point:



    Usually, I'd have to worry about whose turn it is if I want to get more points than the opponent. White only wins if it's black's turn. Under your modification, white always gets more points than black. This will have a profound effect on strategy.
  4. 13 Sep '12 06:29 / 1 edit
    I'm not sure that position undermines the idea SwissGambit. Black could have played for three-fold repetition in most scenarios leading up to it. The other reason to put your king in the corner would be to capture a piece, in which case black was at a disadvantage before the draw (in our new way of viewing things).

    Edit : In reply to SwissGambit's first post
  5. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    13 Sep '12 06:34 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by mikenay
    I'm not sure that position undermines the idea SwissGambit. Black could have played for three-fold repetition in most scenarios leading up to it. The other reason to put your king in the corner would be to capture a piece, in which case black was at a disadvantage before the draw (in our new way of viewing things).

    Edit : In reply to SwissGambit's first post
    Well, if we have to change the definition of 'disadvantage' just to make these new rules make sense, then I've got to ask, are we still playing chess here?
  6. 13 Sep '12 06:36
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    No, this is wrong.

    Your change would make an extra pawn more valuable than it currently is. This will favor a more materialistic approach to the game. Case in point:

    [fen]8/4k3/8/4K3/4P3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]

    Usually, I'd have to worry about whose turn it is if I want to get more points than the opponent. White only wins if it's black's turn. Un ...[text shortened]... tion, white always gets more points than black. This will have a profound effect on strategy.
    Is that so bad?

    White's a pawn up so he get's a half point more than Black if he stalemates, and a full point more if he can queen. It would still be worth White playing for the win, but he get's some recognition of his advantage.

    I do agree, the knock on effects on strategy would be profound. I'm just interested in whether the game would be worse for the change or merely different.
  7. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    13 Sep '12 06:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by mikenay
    Is that so bad?

    White's a pawn up so he get's a half point more than Black if he stalemates, and a full point more if he can queen. It would still be worth White playing for the win, but he get's some recognition of his advantage.

    I do agree, the knock on effects on strategy would be profound. I'm just interested in whether the game would be worse for the change or merely different.
    It's bad in the sense that it is a rule change with too large an impact. It would be a tough sell with the current chess community.
  8. 13 Sep '12 06:54
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Well, if we have to change the definition of 'disadvantage' just to make these new rules make sense, then I've got to ask, are we still playing [b]chess here?[/b]
    Oh, it's definitely a variant!

    I think the rules always define what's a disadvantage. In your second example White is a pawn up and is the only player with a hope of a win, but arguably they don't have an advantage, or certainly not a winning advantage, unless they've got the opposition. There's definitely an argument here on the semantics of what constitutes an advantage, and whether you have one if you've more material but you can't force mate. But that might derail the thread.

    In terms of the proposed rule change I agree that there would be serious repercussions on strategy, so it wouldn't be practical even if it's otherwise plausible.
  9. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    13 Sep '12 11:10
    Just for the sake of the argument:

    (I) The aim of the game is to checkmate the King.

    I hope everybody agrees.

    (II) If you can't checkmate the opposite King you have not won.

    I hope everybody agrees, since it is a direct consequence of (I).

    So if you can't give ckeckmate you didn't reach your aim. You can either have a draw, since that is waht you get when both players agree that there will be no win.
    OR you lose. Some people have argued that the person giving the stalemate should in fact lose, since HIS move ended HIS chances for a win.
  10. 13 Sep '12 11:39
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    [fen]8/8/8/8/8/8/p1K5/k7[/fen]
    White just moved - stalemate

    White gets more points from this result? 😕
    Yes. You can't move. That's not my fault, it's yours. And I'm only suggesting .75-.25, not a whole win.
  11. 13 Sep '12 11:45
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    No, this is wrong.

    Your change would make an extra pawn more valuable than it currently is. This will favor a more materialistic approach to the game. Case in point:

    [fen]8/4k3/8/4K3/4P3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]

    Usually, I'd have to worry about whose turn it is if I want to get more points than the opponent. White only wins if it's black's turn. Un ...[text shortened]... tion, white always gets more points than black. This will have a profound effect on strategy.
    Uh, dude, no. Under the current rules, the position provided is a guaranteed win for White no matter who moves first.

    Your point is moot.
  12. 13 Sep '12 11:55
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    Just for the sake of the argument:

    (I) The aim of the game is to checkmate the King.

    I hope everybody agrees.

    (II) If you can't checkmate the opposite King you have not won.

    I hope everybody agrees, since it is a direct consequence of (I).

    So if you can't give ckeckmate you didn't reach your aim. You can either have a draw, since that is w ...[text shortened]... person giving the stalemate should in fact lose, since HIS move ended HIS chances for a win.
    I'm very tired of this argument. Here's why:

    (I) I agree you win by mating. But you can also win on time. You can also win if you opponent cheats and gets caught. So, mate is not the only way to win, even if it is the goal.

    (II) When you draw, or stalemate, you do win. you win half a point, and so does your opponent. It isn't a 0-0 result. That's an important distinction. As all chess games must have a result, points must be awarded. So, without mating the King, both players win .5 point. Mating isn't the only scoring result.

    I used to believe the stalemate-giver should get a full point, as actually was a rule once in the past. I don't anymore, as I believe mate or loss on time (the lifespan of the King) should be solely the highest score. I propose that skillfully putting your opponent in a position where she no longer has any legal moves should be a half win for the giver, as was also a rule in stakes matches years ago. I've been informed this will lead to points deflation, so I propose .75-.25.

    It's perfectly logical and gives a properly equitable result to the players.
  13. 13 Sep '12 12:00
    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.
  14. 13 Sep '12 12:04
    I'll add this post of mine from another forum:

    I haven't read more than 20% of this thread, but, has it been explained why I should be responsible for my opponent's legal moves? In no other game/sport that I know of is this a player's responsibility. It seems if you've let yourself out of legal moves, you should be punished in some form. This is why when explaining stalemate to first-timers, they ALWAYS have the "smelling onions" face. Every other game/sport they're familiar with has the logical implication that *I* am not responsible for *your* ability to continue. It's anti-competetive, or, cooperative. The entire game we are at competetive odds, but then, for a moment, it's possible for us to be on the same side, as I now must consider your ability to continue. So, yes, it currently results in a different result, as it is a different situation than mate, but it's just bunk for competitors to ever be cooperative.

    To me, it all seems to stem from the currently immutable rule of a player never moving twice in a row. That is why you don't actually take the King when the opponent is unable to remove check; you just win. What you have done is put the opponent in a position where she no longer has any legal moves (remove check or nothing). The only way this is different from Stalemate is that the King is not in check. The player still has no legal moves, but the King isn't in danger. So, they are different situations and the players should have their scores ajudicated differently. This is why I've changed my mind from stalemate-giver getting a full point to getting something less, but still getting more than stalemate-receiver.

    If they changed the rule so that you took the King when check can not be removed, and the opponent therefore can't make ANY move, thereby moving twice in a row, now the stalemate-giver would simply move twice in a row and the game would not end due to the stalemate, though I believe many, many games would end on the next 2 or so moves, as many, many times the King would be checked & then mated. I fully believe very few would want this to be included in our holy pursuit of Caissa.

    The other currently immutable rule, that if done away with, would also remove a portion of our stalemate problems is the King never being able to move into/through check. I also fully believe very few would want this in our game.

    So, instead of changing those 2 rules, why don't we just change the adjudication of the outcome, and make it something like .75-.25 in favor of the giver? The game will still be played in almost wholly the same fashion, but rewards would be changed. It all just seems logical to this patzer.
  15. Standard member ChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    13 Sep '12 12:04
    Originally posted by Grobzilla
    It all just seems logical to this patzer.
    Nail, head, hit