|
|
|
Topic: Should "stalemate" be considered a draw?
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Better. 
|
|
|
"What's your view on some of the other rules, I wonder.
Do you think en passant should also allow pieces to capture those pawns?
And ought we to be able to castle out of check? Hmm."
I do not think any of the moving rules should be changed in regular chess. The changes you suggest should be relegated to chess variants.
I think the only change that should be made to chess rules is the interpretation of stalemate. Any other changes would affect the game too much.
En passant gives pawns an advantage for going extra far into enemy territory, which is more risky for them than for other pieces, since their movement is much more restricted.
"Historically, allowing en passant is one of the last major rule changes in European chess that occurred in the 14th to 15th century, together with the introduction of the two-square first move for pawns, castling, and the unlimited range for queens and bishops. Because of their separation from European chess prior to that period, the Asian chess variants do not feature any of these moves.
The motivation for en passant was to prevent the newly-added two-square first move for pawns from allowing them to evade capture by an enemy pawn. Specifically, it should still allow pawns on the player's fifth rank the opportunity to capture a pawn on an adjacent file which advances two squares from its starting square."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant
|
|
|
Ultimately, the point of the game is to try to checkmate your opponent. Often, the inevitability of checkmate is sufficient to win and your opponent will resign.
Anything else does not count as a win and stalemate is no exception. It is not checkmate and is a dead draw simply because there is no longer the possibility of it.
|
|
|
| Ultimately, the point of the game is to try to checkmate your opponent. |
Of course the object of the game is to checkmate the king, but when this is no longer possible, 'stalemate' should be the next best thing. It should be in between a draw and a win.
| Anything else does not count as a win and stalemate is no exception. |
Did I ever say stalemate should count as a win?
It is inferior to a checkmate, so it should not be given the full credit of a win.
| It is not checkmate and is a dead draw simply because there is no longer the possibility of it. |
That is true. If the object of check was to capture the king, and kings were aloud to move into check, at least if no other move was possible, the stalemated person would lose their king. This shows how close they are to losing their king, as opposed to what should be considered a true draw, where both players can perpetually move, without the possibility of losing their king.
Many argue that the stalemater should be punished.
I agree that they should be "punished," because they failed to deliver checkmate. I just disagree on the severity of it.
(At least it is better now than it was in some places, where it was considered a loss to the one administering it!)
Others object with my view because they like the last chance to outwit their opponent.
It is still to one's advantage to force a stalemate when a checkmate is close at hand, since it would only count as a partial loss (in between a loss and a draw,) rather than a full loss.
|
|
|
Well, very finely stated, but then again:
"If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
If you do not aim to create a viable and possibly very interesting variant of standard chess, but are actually wanting to change the rules worldwide, you are going to be up against more opposition than the few detractors you've encountered on this site.
Despite any innovations which might even turn out to be improvements, there is the matter of conservatism. But conservatism never got us anywhere new? But then, as the rules stand today, chess does not have major gameplaying faults. And it takes long enough to get good at it as it stands. So there's also the status quo factor. And thirdly, quite some people actually earn their living playing chess professionally. Any major change in the rules will not be in their interest, hence will not get their vote.
So where that leaves the innovator, is to start at the bottom and hope your idea will work its way up on its own merits. So take in all the feedback and criticism until you reach the point you aim at, but don't expect the chess-playing world to take notice until they are reduced to a significant minority due to the popularity of the new version.
This will take some work.
Sincerely, F.
|
| Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next |
|
|
|
