34 ( +1 | -1 ) Stalemate...Food for thought... I know that we shouldnít change the rules of chess, but have you ever wondered why stalemate is a draw ? After all, if a side gets into the sort of a predicament where (s)he canít make a move, surely itís as bad as checkmate, isnít it ? In fact, I would think it may even be harder stalemate a non-cooperating opponent than checkmate him/her.
32 ( +1 | -1 ) Stalemateadds an exta dimension to endgames. It is an interesting concept that you raise. For one thing it would mean that the K+P vs. K endings that are drawn because of the stalemate threat would be wins for the side with the pawn. Even though that may well be 'justice", I find it hard to agree with.
42 ( +1 | -1 ) re-i agree with Raimon that would make the pawn more powerful than a queen in k vs. k+p endings and the pawn would not even have to queen to win . no somehow it just seems wrong to me . it would allow winning without queening the pawn . seems to take too much away from original game . just my way of thinking willing to admit i could be very wrong on this one .
44 ( +1 | -1 ) Stalematehas undergone a lot of changes--in the era of Lucena and Ruy Lopez, I believe, it was indeed a loss for the side that caused the stalemate because it was considered dishonorable to be unable to checkmate with superior force. The rule now seems to be the most fair, however. Were the rule changed, practically all of chess theory would need to be revamped, much as with any other rule. Almost all drawn endings with material imbalances (KNN vs. K, KP vs. K, KR vs. KB/KN, KRP vs. KR etc.) would now be won.
95 ( +1 | -1 ) chinese chessi like the stalemate rule in chess because i've learned it by now. maybe if i started over again, i would like a win if my opponent's K were stalemated (but i've tricked some people pretty cleverly into stalemates down material before, so maybe the stalemate rule is fine for me :)).
chinese chess is a bit different. i'm pretty sure that if you can stalemate your opponent's king in chinese chess, it is not a draw but a win for you! i'm not very familiar with the rules of that game, though. try this website if you're interested... it looks very good for beginners like me. tysung.cjb.net/xq/index.html i know the pieces' names by now, at least. there are rooks, kings, pawns, and bishops, plus cannons, elephants, and guards. but again, i don't know much at all yet. playing this new game is just like learning regular chess all over again!!!
17 ( +1 | -1 ) I really don't get why in chesswhen it is a stalemate,it is considered a draw.I know in Chinese chess when you stalemate your opponent it is a win,probably because differences in traditional way of living I guess.
47 ( +1 | -1 ) I disagreeStalemate's are sometimes as artistic as mates. If I blunder if a game I play looking for that stalemate because it demeans the opponent "almost" as much as a mate on them. It is like saying here you go, your chance to win, but then destroying that expected win.
I know that I am more embarrased when I had a win that ended in stalemate then if I were to lose. Because at least I can say hey my best play was not as good as his. But a stalemate meant boy did I blow it.
65 ( +1 | -1 ) ...I often wondered this myself. In the FIDE rules of chess (paraphrased), the game is lost when a player "can't make a legal move".
Stalemate should certainly count in this kind of a definition. But stalemate is kind of the shining light to a lost game - it is a slight possibility that you still might not lose the game.
Since giving the win to either side (silverwolf is right, by the way, that the player caught in stalemate used to be the winner of the game. That's back when the rules governing what constitutes a draw were uncertain) would be a bit unfair, a draw just makes the most sense.