|
|
|
Topic: Should "stalemate" be considered a draw?
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Onceupon, how did you make and post the above chess image?
|
|
|
Evjen,
Chess can only be won by checkmating the opponent ,or the opponent resigning.One must always be mindful, when having an advantage ,not to place the opponent in a position of stalemate,from whence it is impossible to give checkmate.There can only be three scenario's loss,draw,win.
|
|
|
| Onceupon, how did you make and post the above chess image? |
queenalice.com/topic.php?id=932
|
|
|
"Employing your logic, one might argue that the player with superior forces is always winning. But consider that in many cases, his opponent may have a forced draw or even a mate at his disposal. In other words, it's not about the material you have but about how you use it."
Anyone who stalemates his opponent is in a better position, and usually has better forces, but not in the following position:
In the above position, Black has weaker forces, but a better position, and white has stronger forces, but a weaker position. Although black cannot checkmate white with its pieces, it can stalemate white.
In checkers, if one blocks their opponent from moving, it is considered as much of a win as if they had captured all of their pieces. Stalemate is a similar situation. The King cannot move anywhere without being captured.
However, since chess is a bit different, and it is easier to accidentally stalemate someone than checkmate them, I think stalemate should count as a 3/4 win.
|
|
|
Beg your pardon! In the above position it's not stalemate but mate in one which ever side is to move. So please stop talking crap, you seemingly can't understand the meaning of stalemate. I am not the one trying to make you understand, it doesn't make sense at all. A lot of people tried, but you're taking them all for a ride, don't you?
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 Next |
|
|
|
