Let's change the Stalemate ruels

And this one, too:

A problem I see with arguments above, on both sides, is the referencing of inferior/superior players, their play, and whether the rules allow for help/hurt in imbalanced-ability situations (which are most!) and their aesthetic value subsequently born out by play effected by said rule. I cannot stress this enough, so I'm going all caps for just a moment here: THE RULES/LAWS DON'T EVER KNOW THERE IS AN IMBALANCE IN ABILITY, NOR SHOULD THEY. All good and proper laws and rules *take no favor* for the parties concerned; they provide *equity* for the two players/parties. And they most certainly aren't about preserving any perceived aesthetic value due to either the ability imbalance or the rule that removes equity from the players, as I & others postulate it does in fact do.

We start out each & every game, each and every one of us, equals in the eyes of both the rules of the game, and in the competetive spirit with which we endeavor to play. I'd have gone all caps again with that statement, but I didn't want to be taken lightly by trying to be taken seriously. 🙂

Yes, White most assuredly has an advantage in the opening move, but then, we only play half our games with that color, correct? That factor balances out between the colors and I can't imagine anyone really feels the need to find ways to make W & B any more even than they are, can they?

Also, some of the statements seem to imply that it's (almost) always Black that needs the help. You know this is not so. So, as the current stalemate rule "works" for both sides, no real advantage is given back to Black, other than she might need it more often than White...but don't be too sure of that frequency, unless you only play in the very strongest of fields.

If we're going to have ways to seek to righten an imbalance in ability through inequitable rules, it then logically serves that we could start doing the same by handicapping the perceived-to-be-stronger-at-that-moment player, couldn't we? Pawn odds in favor of the weakie, anybody? I though not.

I for one LOVE the fact that you, me, Nakamura, the patzer down at club, the park hustler, Kramnik, ad infinitum all play under the same rules, rules, that for the most part, are fair & balanced and *make no assumption that either player is stronger than the other*, and don't seek to right such an inequality once the situation becomes clearer as to who will win the game. Stalemate is currently just about the only rule that does this. It is bunk and needs to *revert* to something like the half win only for the giver.

.75-.25, anyone?

Originally posted by Grobzilla
Yes. You can't move. That's not my fault, it's yours. And I'm only suggesting .75-.25, not a whole win.

its your fault for letting your opponent get his king in a position for stalemate. you say its the only game a player gets punished though no fault of thier own? what about a football player deliberatly stopping a goal by hand ball, hes sent off, penalty missed the game ends in a draw (it happened in last word cup and plenty other times) i agree its not fair, but checkmate is the result, one of my sons friends was playing in a competiton in edinburgh in may, his opponent was down to a king while he had most of his peices left (we are talking 9 year olds) instead of finishing him off quickly he goes for more queens he ends up with 4 of them, 2 rooks 2 bishops and a knight, all he got was a stale mate and half a point, he will learn from it. when you start to play any game, know the rules and follow them. you might not like them but thats part of the challenge, trust me if you are getting thrashed then pull off a stale mate it will feel like a win. 😀

Originally posted by Grobzilla
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.

Oh, yeah?

White to move. Please provide a winning strategy.

Before you try to change the game, try to know it well.

Richard

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
Nail, head, hit

To which do you refer, the absolutely pure logic of my argument, or the fact that I stink at playing chess? 😉

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Oh, yeah?

White to move. Please provide a winning strategy.

Before you try to change the game, try to know it well.

Richard

Well stated, and you beat me to it. It sometimes scares me how certainty of belief seems to vary inversely with knowledge of subject matter.

And another one:

We don't change the rules. So the discussion is futile anyway.
anybody can play any game after any rules. It's just not interesting the world.

And on the reply to my post you don't seem to make a point you didn't in your original post and the ridiculous reposting of same.

Oh and if you want a different counting method on the site, repost under Site Ideas

Originally posted by Grobzilla
THE RULES/LAWS DON'T EVER KNOW THERE IS AN IMBALANCE IN ABILITY, NOR SHOULD THEY.

Yet, in your first post, we can read:

"It seems if you've let yourself out of legal moves, you should be punished in some form."

This clearly refers to an imbalance in ability as one player has no more legal moves, and you address that as his fault. In addition, your suggestion is to award .75-.25 points, which is a change of rules. Therefore, I see you are trying yourself to let the rules of chess reflect some imbalance in ability.

I understand your feeling that missing a win, by stalemating the opponent, is 'unfair'. I refer to your own statement that the rules don't care what is fair/unfair. They are just a toolbox you use to get some result. If you don't like the toolbox, you can change what's inside, but then you're playing another game. And I think there are already enough chess variants.

And by the way: there are variants where the objective is to lose (e.g. antichess, helpmate, selfmate), just to show that any set of rules can be a game, even when losing means you win.

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 ...[text shortened]... e fashion, but rewards would be changed. It all just seems logical to this patzer.

18 games in 5 years, take it easy there, remember spell checker its RULES not ruels😀

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Well stated, and you beat me to it. It sometimes scares me how certainty of belief seems to vary inversely with knowledge of subject matter.

I recommend http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~suh/metacognition.pdf

(It's Kruger and Dunning's original paper.)

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Oh, yeah?

White to move. Please provide a winning strategy.

Before you try to change the game, try to know it well.

Richard

I misunderstood. It's absolutely a draw. I can admit when I'm wrong.

Originally posted by roma45
18 games in 5 years, take it easy there, remember spell checker its RULES not ruels😀

My as-I-type spellchecker doesn't work in this forum's post editor. Didn't think I needed to put it in Word first to make sure it's up to the RHP forum standards. But seeing as that was one of maybe 3 in many, many words typed, I do wonder if you'll forgive my transgression. Please find it in your heart.

And, yes, 18 games in 5 years. HERE. Played many more elsewhere. I also took time off from Chess to focus my leisure time on Bridge.

At any rate, what's your point? That my lack of play on RHP doesn't allow me an opinion. Maybe it's you that needs to settle down.

The best argument not to abolish stalemate is mentioned by Swissgambit already - it will increase importance of material, changing evaluation of many endgames where weakest side survives only due to stalemate rule. And it will lead to more cautious & boring chess with less beautiful combinations and sacrifices.

Let stalemate players play their own game if they want, but hands off from real chess!

Originally posted by Pacifique
The best argument not to abolish stalemate is mentioned by Swissgambit already - it will increase importance of material, changing evaluation of many endgames where weakest side survives only due to stalemate rule. And it will lead to more cautious & boring chess with less beautiful combinations and sacrifices.

Let stalemate players play their own game if they want, but hands off from real chess!

I agree.

The possibility of brilliant stalemating combinations involving the sacrificing of pieces adds to the beauty and magic of the game. I don't ever want to see that famous game between Larry Evans and Samuel Reshevsky where Evans found a clever stalemating combo to be thrown on the ash heap of history.

"Stalemateaphobes" can just go off and create their own little variant that I bet few will play.

Originally posted by Grobzilla
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.

You don't know basic endgame theory if you think this is a win regardless of who has the move.



Prove it. You have white. It's your move.

I can't send you a game because you're maxed out, so we'll have to do it here.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You don't know basic endgame theory if you think this is a win regardless of who has the move.

[pgn]
[FEN "8/4k3/8/4K3/4P3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[/pgn]

I already admitted my mistake above. Please read. I've been up all night.