I can see how stalemate makes the game more interesting as you have to watch out for clever stalemating combinations when you are winning. You can’t let your guard down. So I see its great entertainment value and how it is a neat resource for desperate players. However, it also seems totally ridiculous that the side that can’t move gets a draw. But the rules say you have to attack the King in such a way that he can’t escape to win (checkmate). To make stalemate a loss for the side that can’t move means you could win both by checkmate and stalemate and that seems awkward.
Does stalemate = draw seem illogical to anybody here? By the way, post any of your brilliant stalemating combinations if you’d like.
Originally posted by homedepotovWell, here are some positions where stalemate = win seems illogical, at least to me:
I can see how stalemate makes the game more interesting as you have to watch out for clever stalemating combinations when you are winning. You can’t let your guard down. So I see its great entertainment value and how it is a neat resource for desperate players. However, it also seems totally ridiculous that the side that can’t move gets a draw. But the r ...[text shortened]... to anybody here? By the way, post any of your brilliant stalemating combinations if you’d like.
The white king is not the slightest bit unsafe here - just a victim of over-crowding.
Here, with stalemate = win, the winner is whoever moved last! It seems funny to award a win to one side when BOTH sides are equally lacking in offensive potential.
Originally posted by homedepotovThe arguments from a practical perspective are even stronger. Chess theory would change very radically without stalemate. It would be like a different game. Being up by one pawn would be a much much larger advantage than it is now.
Thanks, I've never been more convinced that stalemate should remain a draw.
The side with the greater material can be penalized by it if it is counted a win.
All these positions that are theoretical draws now would become wins for the stronger side:
The biggest impact would be King and pawn vs. King - no more need to have the opposition!
From Wikipedia:
"The outcome of a stalemate was standardized as a draw in the 19th century. Before this standardization, its treatment varied widely, including being deemed a win for the stalemating player, a half-win for that player, or a loss for that player; not being permitted; and resulting in the stalemated player missing a turn."
Half-win?
