Let's change the Stalemate ruels

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
OK, how about giving the player who is stalemated the full point? After all it is likely due to the other player's ineptitude that stalemate has occurred.

That was my very first proposition. But I've heard some very good arguments against the full point. Then I wanted for a half win only for giver, like they used to do in stakes games. I've been informed that this would lead to points deflation, so I figured .75-.25 would work. This is close to Lasker's proposal of .8, I think.

Originally posted by Grobzilla
That was my very first proposition. But I've heard some very good arguments against the full point. Then I wanted for a half win only for giver, like they used to do in stakes games. I've been informed that this would lead to points deflation, so I figured .75-.25 would work. This is close to Lasker's proposal of .8, I think.

😞 You missed my point, so 1/2-1/2
I like Paul's perspective, he's a glass half full type of guy. I just am glad there's a glass with something in it.

Originally posted by Grobzilla
And you are currently unable to prove it. How would you? I can't refute evidence that doesn't exist. I'm simply proposing having games played. Then analyze the data. If it spoils the game, I'd vote to keep the current rule, no matter how illogical. I love the game as much as any other. But that doesn't preclude change.

I just don't understand why some a ...[text shortened]... g a possible improvement to a board game that might only affect a small portion of games.

I` don`t need to prove something which is obvious for players rated over 1000 in chess.com tactics 😵

Hello maxlange,

your first position is clear: Qg5+ Kxg5 (forced) stalemate

your second position, I don't get. Maybe the black queen belongs on g8 instead of f8, because then Qxc4 is a draw. Either by Qxc4 (stalemate) or Qc8+ Qg8 (no more improvement possible, also after Qxg8 Kxg8)

Originally posted by tvochess
Hello maxlange,

your first position is clear: Qg5+ Kxg5 (forced) stalemate

your second position, I don't get. Maybe the black queen belongs on g8 instead of f8, because then Qxc4 is a draw. Either by Qxc4 (stalemate) or Qc8+ Qg8 (no more improvement possible, also after Qxg8 Kxg8)

Black can play 1...Qg8 and white cant stop Qxc4 next move.

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
😞 You missed my point, so 1/2-1/2
I like Paul's perspective, he's a glass half full type of guy. I just am glad there's a glass with something in it.

If I even missed your point, it doesn't make it valid. So, no, not .5-.5. You never studied logic, did you?

And your thinly veiled insults are comical. Why don't you dig down into that black pit of hate you call a soul and really just say what you think? You'll feel better.

Me? I'm just having a debate about a rule in a strategic board game.

Originally posted by Pacifique
I` don`t need to prove something which is obvious for players rated over 1000 in chess.com tactics 😵

Seeing as I know I'm not a great player, but then, neither are you, how does telling me my own score do anything? But then, anyone's chessic ability has nothing to do with the construction of a rule set, but I'm beginning to see you can't think outside of anything other than, "I'm a better chess player than you, so, nyah 8-P, it's the only thing that matters".

Let me ask you, on the off chance you hava significant other, do you dismiss his/hers opinions because they play chess a few hundred Elo points worse than you?

Originally posted by luke myster
Black can play 1...Qg8 and white cant stop Qxc4 next move.

Ah yes, thanks.

I think these examples show how the stalemate rule is one of the tools of the defending party. But they don't show how it would lead to more materialistic play. There is of course an impact on strategy, but not in an obvious way more materialistic.

In standard chess, both positions will draw because of the stalemate rule.

In the .75-.25 variant, the defending player will have more work in trying to draw based on other rules such as lack of winning material, 3-fold repetition, 50-move rule. Unless I missed the point of these positions and stalemate is the only route to drawing. In which case it is still preferable over losing the game of course.

It may be that .75-.25 scoring results in more materialistic play. But I don't get this point from the given positions. The reasoning that stalemates are most often given by the side with material advantage makes more sense, but is not a very strong argument. I would like to see an example where there is a clear difference between both variants in the choice between material and other advantages.

Thanks to those who can supply an example (or explain why the given examples already show this).

Originally posted by tvochess
Ah yes, thanks.

I think these examples show how the stalemate rule is one of the tools of the defending party. But they don't show how it would lead to more materialistic play. There is of course an impact on strategy, but not in an obvious way more materialistic.

In standard chess, both positions will draw because of the stalemate rule.

In the .75 ...[text shortened]... anks to those who can supply an example (or explain why the given examples already show this).

I'm going to wager no one will. There are currently no examples, no data. Only the assertions of players who may be stronger over the board, if not in logic, debate, or communications skills.

And if examples do arise, and they make sense, then, good! We're a step closer to figuring out if my proposal is worth the trouble.

Originally posted by Grobzilla
Seeing as I know I'm not a great player, but then, neither are you, how does telling me my own score do anything? But then, anyone's chessic ability has nothing to do with the construction of a rule set, but I'm beginning to see you can't think outside of anything other than, "I'm a better chess player than you, so, nyah 8-P, it's the only thing that matte ...[text shortened]... smiss his/hers opinions because they play chess a few hundred Elo points worse than you?

You need chess ability & knowledge to understand consequences of implementing your proposal.

Originally posted by Pacifique
You need chess ability & knowledge to understand consequences of implementing your proposal.

Wrong again. All we need is for the game to be played under the proposal and see if it makes the game better or worse. Sure, get a bunch of experts together beforehand to discuss it and see it has any merit. You're not that expert, and neither am I.

You keep propping yourself up as the expert with all of the answers, but I don't think there are many who'd take your word as Chess Gospel. They certainly wouldn't with mine. Why not have the real playing and legislating experts of chess do it? What's your objection to an inquiry? I'm guessing your answer is, "Chess is Chess, and don't you dare change a hair on its perfect little head, because in the small pond of the chess world, I have a modicum of prowess and
I would just DIE if couldn't lord that over lesser players' heads".

Furthermore, I have enough knowledge and ability to understand "both" positions of this debate. As do you, but you just choose not to. With you it's just, "I play better chess, therefore your opinion means nothing". If Kasparov told you the sky was red, would you believe him. Somehow, I think you might...

Originally posted by Grobzilla
Wrong again. All we need is for the game to be played under the proposal and see if it makes the game better or worse. Sure, get a bunch of experts together beforehand to discuss it and see it has any merit.

I think the main problem with the idea is that in a draw situation, each player's (and spectator's) view will be subjective. It is not dissimilar to saying that a Football Team is awarded 2 points instead of 1 if they were the team that scored first in a 1-1 draw. Just because they had first blood, what makes the equal status more equal than the other? Each drawn situation will have a vast variety of different pieces and positions, and it seems counter-intuitive to deem who has gained more from the draw. For me, there is just as much skill in avoiding being checkmated as there is a blunder in falling for a perpetual. So I have issue with some of the finer points of some chess rules, but a 0.5-0.5 score is not one of them.

Originally posted by morgski
I think the main problem with the idea is that in a draw situation, each player's (and spectator's) view will be subjective. It is not dissimilar to saying that a Football Team is awarded 2 points instead of 1 if they were the team that scored first in a 1-1 draw. Just because they had first blood, what makes the equal status more equal than the other? Eac ...[text shortened]... sue with some of the finer points of some chess rules, but a 0.5-0.5 score is not one of them.

This isn't about Draws; it's about Stalemates. They are different situations despite the same current score.

Originally posted by Grobzilla
If I even missed your point, it doesn't make it valid. So, no, not .5-.5. You never studied logic, did you?

And your thinly veiled insults are comical. Why don't you dig down into that black pit of hate you call a soul and really just say what you think? You'll feel better.

Me? I'm just having a debate about a rule in a strategic board game.

First off there Mr Ruels, I've studied far more than you. You have no idea what I think, and even if you did, you'd need to find someone to explain the words to you.
Clear enough Mr. "Ruels?"

Originally posted by Grobzilla
This isn't about Draws; it's about Stalemates. They are different situations despite the same current score.

stalemate is part of the beauty of Chess - its just patzers like you who don't understand the game who want it removed...