I found out what happened in the game the white person moved the queen and the king could not move to any spot therefore if you look at 1733987 game the queen block all the spots except for the spot that the king was on and the pawn were nothing inportant so I think that might help somewhat
Originally posted by GolubNow let's be honest, how many of us knew all rules of chess before we began playing what we thought was chess?
I'm sorry but.. it's kind of funny how someone can play a game without making sure he knows what the goal is. And yeah, I do .NET programming.
Imagine this conversation:
Johnny (age 8) - Hey Mike, do you want to play a game of chess?
Mike (age 8) - I'd better not. I know the basic rules, but I need to make sure I read the FIDE rule book in its entirity before a venture into an actual competition.
How many of us knew these rules before our first competition?
o How to castle.
o Restrictions on Castling through check or from check.
o En Passant
o Stalemate
o actual 50 move rule (I was originally told that 50 moves began counting when one side gets down to just their king. I never knew better until I did read the rule book in college)
o actual 3 repetition rule (as opposed to some common mis-interpretations)
o correct setup of the board (i.e. queen on own color, white square on lower right corner for both players).
I began reading chess books before I knew what en-passant was. And once in 6th grade, I statemated another beginner and declared myself the winner. He didn't know any better, so the game was over and both of us content. Fortunately there was no one there to tell me how stupid I was to play a game for which I didn't know all the rules.
Of course back when I was learning chess, we'd never heard of the Internet, nor even dreamed of a "chess server". RHP forces some rules upon people who might not have known better, and naturally these people want to ask someone with more experience. But it never fails, anytime someone asks a rules question on these forums, someone pipes in and insults them. Like any of us knew all rules before we began. And if we didn't know that we didn't know, we stumbled upon it in a game and had someone explain at that time. This is exactly what the person who started the thread did.
And those answering the question, didn't seem to mind.
The first time I stalemated someone, it had not even occurred to me beforehand that such a thing was possible. I'm sure someone will make sure I know they think I'm stupid for this, but I would contend that not many beginners are going to think to ask about such a scenerio until it happens to them, or they've played a while.
Okay, all you guys that read the FIDE rule book at age 3 before you ventured to touch a chess piece, begin your flaming.
It's a stupid rule though. If you've forced your opponent into a stalemate position then often it shows you've played better than them - certainly that was the case in this game. Mind you, you get football matches where one side gets 20 shots, the other gets two, and yet the latter wins 2-1. Life is not fair!!
Originally posted by hammertime217The side with the extra Queen can (usually) easily avoid stalemate. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. The people who whine the loudest about stalemate are usually the same that can't be bothered to look one move ahead, to check their opponent's response.
It's a stupid rule though. If you've forced your opponent into a stalemate position then often it shows you've played better than them - certainly that was the case in this game. Mind you, you get football matches where one side gets 20 shots, the other gets two, and yet the latter wins 2-1. Life is not fair!!
Stalemate gives the defending side a chance to draw in certain situations like this one:
Abolish the stalemate rule, and White can win any King+Pawn vs. King ending, so long as his pawn is protectable. That means more games will be won by winning one extra pawn, followed by a boring trade-down to the endgame, which now requires little or no technique to win.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemNevertheless, the original poster at this point has 230 games completed on this site, with 90 wins, and up until recently had not come across a situation that has exposed his lack of knowledge. While checkmate is not really obscure, it has been proven possible to play a lot of games without knowing that a stalemate is a draw.
The original poster didn't even know the definition of checkmate. That's hardly some obscure rule, like the 50-move rule.
While this may be interesting and even the basis of a friendly discussion, it is hardly a reason to hurl insults at someone. Sometimes people simply don't know what they don't know.
And if they don't know that they don't know, there is no reason a person would ask. Almost all of us started chess with an incomplete understanding of the rules.
Person A didn't understand precisely the 50 move rule, well that's understandable.
Person B didn't understand what a stalemate is. Oh no!!! What a complete moron!!! Go back and read the entire rule book before you dare even ask a question from more experienced players on RHP!!!
2 edits
Originally posted by techsouthThis case is different. He deliberately aimed for the stalemate position,
Nevertheless, the original poster at this point has 230 games completed on this site, with 90 wins, and up until recently had not come across a situation that has exposed his lack of knowledge. While checkmate is not really obscure, it has been proven possible to play a lot of games without knowing that a stalemate is a draw.
While this may be interest ire rule book before you dare even ask a question from more experienced players on RHP!!!
thinking it was checkmate. In other words, the problem was not that he didn't know about stalemate; it's that he did not know the definition of checkmate.
Usually, beginners give stalemate without even realizing that their opponent doesn't have a legal move.
"Checkmate" contains the word "Check". This is the rule that most fascinates beginners. They'll throw away wins with K+R v. K by continuously checking with the Rook. It is consistent to assume that you must give check to give checkmate.
I'm not here to insult the OP; I just find it curious that made a thread out of it when a simple look at the rule book would have sufficed.