|
|
|
Topic: Should "stalemate" be considered a draw?
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
In the better kind of chess books, the concept of the stalemate trap, a combination that will lead to stalemate if the side with the advantage overlooks it, will get treated. I must say, I greatly value that one last chance to outwit my opponent on the very rare occasions that it is possible at all.
I'm not sure if I can go along with the real-life analogy that Evyen suggests. Chess seems more like a battle than a whole war. And the last battle that was decided by the death of the king was a long time ago already - Hastings, 1066! What we are left with is an excellent game, which has its rules more or less set. To make any change in them will require a little work, though perhaps worthwhile in the attempt:
1. Attain at least International Master level at chess.
2. Become at least a millionaire.
3. Polish your lobbying skills to their utmost.
4. Get elected as president of FIDE.
5. Impose your will.
Good luck!
F.
PS: DNFTT!
|
|
|
| The only one left on that side who can still do anything is the king. |
Black, to move, would disagree.
|
|
|
" 'The only one left on that side who can still do anything is the king.'
...
Black, to move, would disagree."
You are correct. I made a mistake in my analogy. It should be amended to the following:
"Stalemate, however is different than either of the above situations. It is analogous to the following:
The stalemated side's soldiers are all captured or trapped from moving, or if they can move, they would leave the king unguarded.
The only one left on that side who can still do anything is the king and / or perhaps soldiers guarding entrances to the fort who,
if they moved to do any thing would leave the king vulnerable to a capture.
The king is in a small fort surrounded on all sides by the enemy.
If he leaves the fort, or if any of his soldiers move, he will be captured, so he (or one of his soldiers) waves a white flag and surrenders."
"I'm not sure if I can go along with the real-life analogy that Evjen suggests."
No analogy is perfect, but mine seems close enough to show the logic in my opinion of how stalemates should be treated.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
| Do you think en passant should also allow pieces to capture those pawns? |
Now that is a brilliant suggestion! Keep those peasant soldiers very, very frightened lest they revolt and turn this whole mess into a game of draughts (checkers)!!
| ought we to be able to castle out of check? |
Of course! When the King gets in the firing line, he has the Royal Right to retreat into his fort!!
My friends, let us start a movement. Yes, we can! We need to conceive a new chess, a better game, more suited to present-day reality. I mean... I mean... we are playing a rather antiquated version of warfare, aren't we? Where are the helicopters? What about special forces? Why can't we fire any missiles? Trident e2-e8 : BOOOM!! ...cackle cackle cackle!
Forget about changing any rules! I mean, what is with this Medieval stuff we've been putting up with for so long anyway? Let's all update to Mutually Assured Destruction chess and leave the old game to the unhip!
F.
|
| Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next |
|
|
|
