Let's change the Stalemate ruels

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

I disagree that it's beautiful. I understand the game, though I am a patzer. I don't want it removed. I want it scored differently. As in, .75-.25 for the giver/causer.

Also, you're a patzer, too, whether you're better than me or not.

And, "plopzilla"? Really? Are you under 16? Under 12? Poop jokes...lord. If you want to say something, send me a PM with some real hate, you child.

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. 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 v told you the sky was red, would you believe him. Somehow, I think you might...

With your chess skill you are unable to play high quality game to see what happens when the game is not decided by stupid blunders.

It`s funny to see patzer (according to your own words) claiming that he understands the game.

And I agree with plopzilla - also moves leading to stalemate is beautiful. Like this one:

Anand - Kramnik, World Championship match 2007

White seems to be lost as f-pawn will fall. But Anand played 65.Kh5! and Kramnik had to stalemate his opponent with 65...Kxf5. The rest moves were losing.

Originally posted by Pacifique
With your chess skill you are unable to play high quality game to see what happens when the game is not decided by stupid blunders.

Wrong again, again.

Just because my games suck, doesn't mean I can't go through a Master game and, eventually, understand what his thinking was. It's called learning. I know you stopped doing that sometime in your adulthood, but I assure you, it's OK to continue.

You have become a broken record with the irrelevant argument that chess skill somehow equals rules logic understanding. You have never, not once, refuted that.

The only good point you have ever made on this topic is that a change in the scoring MAY change the game for the worse, but you and I currently have no way of knowing that. Your attempt at refutation of the latter part of my argument has always resulted in your above argument about playing skill, which is busted.

Speaking of busted, I'm sure you could bust be up over the board, but I can bust up your weak arguments 24/7. At this point, it's the only reason I'm continuing to post on this thread. I enjoy busting illogical, myopic, & hubris filled individuals such as yourself.

Either find someone better at debating an issue or a Chess *rules expert* (possibly a player) to help you tilt at my windmills, or go home and find some woodpushers to swindle in blitz, it's the only thing you're good at from what I can tell.

Originally posted by Grobzilla
I disagree that it's beautiful. I understand the game, though I am a patzer. I don't want it removed. I want it scored differently. As in, .75-.25 for the giver/causer.

Also, you're a patzer, too, whether you're better than me or not.

And, "plopzilla"? Really? Are you under 16? Under 12? Poop jokes...lord. If you want to say something, send me a PM with some real hate, you child.

The irony is your not really 'interested' in playing Chess at all are you? You just want to talk about it and look at it from a far..

I guess you don't want to play it because you don't understand it enough yet... lol



muwhahahahahahaha

Originally posted by Grobzilla
Wrong again, again.

Just because my games suck, doesn't mean I can't go through a Master game and, eventually, understand what his thinking was. It's called learning. I know you stopped doing that sometime in your adulthood, but I assure you, it's OK to continue.

You have become a broken record with the irrelevant argument that chess skill somehow eq ...[text shortened]... odpushers to swindle in blitz, it's the only thing you're good at from what I can tell.

All your arguments are making empty claims denying things obvious for stronger players. So learn to play chess better.

Originally posted by Grobzilla
But guess what? I'm not arguing for the rule change to affect my chess life alone. I'm arguing for the change solely because I find it illogical, and I hate to see the whole chess world play under it.

Too bad. The whole chess world likes the stalemate rule just fine as it is. Time to get off your high horse.

Richard

Originally posted by Pacifique
All your arguments are making empty claims denying things obvious for stronger players. So learn to play chess better.

Wrong again, again, again.

How do you know that all players stronger than me share your opinion? Have you polled them? Or is your hubris so complete that you think that you think exactly like all of the very best players? Also, at what playing strength did you decide that players get to have opinions due to their understanding of the game? And who gave you that power? Your argument about playing strength equaling logical rule-set and meaningful game-theory understanding is busted in yet another way. No matter how you rephrase it, it doesn't hold my chesspiece bag with any firmity.

There certainly have been GMs in the past who don't agree with you. Who's right, Capablanca & Lasker, or you? I maintain that we don't know yet, but if I had to choose, it wouldn't be your big fish/small pond mind.

Originally posted by Pacifique
The best argument not to abolish stalemate is mentioned by Swissgambit already

No, it wasn't, really. That's a very good argument, but the best argument has not been mentioned yet. The best argument against changing stalemate is:
We've already been there, done that, and found it lacking - long ago.

Really, we have. There have been times and places where stalemate was a win. There have also been times and places where it was a loss. Those times and places are long gone, and the current rule prevailed. And not, let us be clear, because chessplayers as a whole are perverted, illogical people who choose rules just to irritate the supremely logical few like Grobzilla; no, the current stalemate rule has survived because it has proven itself best for play.

We don't even need to argue, or try Grobzilla's proposal. We don't need to, not just because it's a priori silly, but even more strongly, because we already have done so, and proven it a posteriori inferior to the current rule, as well.

Stalemate is here to stay, simply because stalemate has stayed, and the alternatives have fallen.

Richard

In fact it is not about the game (stalemate rule as such), but about how tournaments are played. For any friendly game the counting is of no consequence.
The counting is only of consequence in tournaments.

Stalemates are not that common that the whole tournament world has to be shaken.

But on counting issues there has been different notions. On this site for example a win is three points, while a draw is only one, so the site actually is differing from the standard system. All agree: no problem.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
No, it wasn't, really. That's a very good argument, but the best argument has not been mentioned yet. The best argument against changing stalemate is:
We've already been there, done that, and found it lacking - long ago.

Really, we have. There have been times and places where stalemate was a win. There have also been times and places w ...[text shortened]... simply because stalemate has stayed, and the alternatives have fallen.

Richard

Richard,

Holy crud! A cogent, lucid, logical argument. I tip my hat.

This, I think, is the best argument against my proposition of changing the score for stalemates. Just about my only difference is that the proposition is "a priori silly". Part scores and Dynamic scores have been proposed and considered, if not adopted, by players & rules makers far superior to me. Calling one is calling the same, especially since it was this very argument addressed. And it wasn't that long ago that the current rule was adopted, sometime in the late 19th century, I believe.

And yes, I can be logical to a fault. I have no problem admitting that.

And since the rule has been maintained 'a popularis' for around 120+yrs, maybe it has proved itself.

I'm still curious as to what ".75-.25 Stalemate Chess" would play like. That's just my nature. Who knows, maybe I'll write a program and have it play itself for a year and see what happens.

But the rule really is illogical, despite all acceptances... ;-)

Bill

Hi Grobzilla.

I've read most of this thread and can it's now reached the name calling stage.
They all go this way when two parties disagree.
Here it appears one party is made of one (you) v the rest.

I'll chip in against the argument but your grade or chess playing prowess
has nothing to do with my stance.

First, as you correctly mentioned at one time the player who stalemated
the King was awarded the win.

You have to consider why this rule was changed.
It was to raise the skill level of the game.

You yourself said:

"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.

SG supplied a few examples these I think are even easy to understand.

White to move.


1. dxe5 and even though the pawn Queens with a check this is a draw
(the c-pawn's stalemate pattern) .

1.dxc5 wins.

Under the current proposal White whould just shrig his shoulders and take
either pawn he wins either way.

Black to play.


1....dxe5 losses whilst 1....dxc5 draws (again the c-pawn).

Under the current proposal Black can take either pawn, he losses.
An element of skill has been removed from the game.

Changing the current set of rules would demean the game, lower
the standard of play denying a player winning to excercise his skill in
avoiding a stalelmate and robbing a player of his chance to show his
skill in drawing a game.

That last position is quite important. Black is not lost in that position.
Under the proposal he is. (.75 to .25 in a match is as good as a win.)

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Grobzilla.

I've read most of this thread and can it's now reached the name calling stage.
They all go this way when two parties disagree.
Here it appears one party is made of one (you) v the rest.

I'll chip in against the argument but your grade or chess playing prowess
has nothing to do with my stance.

First, as you correctly mentioned at ...[text shortened]... t in that position.
Under the proposal he is. (.75 to .25 in a match is as good as a win.)

Sorry you went to all that trouble, but see my post directly above. Between that, and the possibility of it hurting attacking chess, I'm leaving the issue alone.

The rule was never proven logical to my satisfaction, but it was proven "good enough" for the vast majority of the playing populous. So, I take my leave of the issue.

Guess I'll read your post now, it looks like you went to some trouble. Thanks.

Hi Grob's

It looks like you posted as I was writing.

The stalemate rule though somewhat peculiar in its concept is designed to possibly apply equally to either side though, in reality it is of course normally fair in a game only to one player or the other depending upon whether there be a game advantage or not and,not both in the same game. However this is not the issue here,the relevant issue is the somewhat silly sounding 'stalemate opportunity availability' which is random in its nature,as neither player can predict a stalemated position from before the first move is made. Simply put pre-game random chance determines the availability of stalemate and it is strictly in this sense that fairness to both sides is obvious. as to whether such a rule should exist atal is of course purely a matter of personal opinion,so long as the rules remain as they are. It is long established that in any competetive arena all players must accept that 'playing the game'requires a pre-game acceptance of all existing rules and conditions,and that those who seek to change the rules are free to lobby the ruling body and other interested parties. Finally having been 'the victim' myself of stalemated game,I found it prudent to remember that I have caused other players to be victims ,whats' sauce for the goose!?--Recvc.