|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Dec-04-06
 |
| Honza Cervenka: <Sometimes it may seem unfair> Why unfair? Stalemate is not unfair even if it is caused by blunder in won position. Mistake is a part of chess and only player who has made it is responsible and sanctioned for it. But stalemates are not always product of inferior play. For example, in a position on diagram after 69.Kc6-b7 from J Cervenka vs L Pospisil, 2002
click for larger viewblack could have "forced" stalemate by 69...Kc5 70.a6 (the only move) 70...Kb5 71.Kxa7 (once again the only move) 71...Kc6 72.c8=Q+ Rxc8 but why should he be awarded for that with full point if he is unable to force checkmate? Why should be this better outcome for black and worse for white (though I like this line) than text finish 69...Kxa5 70.Kxa7 Rf7 71.Kb8 Rxc7 72.Kxc7? |
 |
| Dec-04-06 |
| soughzin: Well in chess you must alternate moves and the goal is still basically to capture the king even if we stop a move earlier with checkmate. If you're only move breaks the rules of the game maybe it should be a loss? In a way checkmate is when after your the next move you're king will be captured no matter where you move. Stalemate sort of fits to that scenario and the current rule is somewhat of a technicality. No stalemates in checkers ; ) It still makes some interesting games(like this one!) and is not all bad though. |
|
Dec-04-06
 |
| kevin86: A brilliant ending!
In government,checks and balances is a system to balance power by allowing one segment of government to limit the powers of another. In the US-such powers as veto,impeachment,declaring a law unconstitutional,etc-are such checks. In chess,the stalemate rule and the 50 move rule can allow a player with lesser material to possibly gain a draw. In today's case,black had an obvious material advantage but allowed white to trap him into a position where black must stalemate him. |
|
Dec-04-06
 |
| Peligroso Patzer: A great example of a "Crazy Rook" stalemate theme. BTW, in my opinion, both the stalemate and en passant rules are absolutely essential to the logic of the game. For a recent example of a game where the en passant rule was critical in determining the outcome, see: Shirov vs Aronian, 2006 In the position after 48. ... Ke8 (in Shirov vs Aronian, 2006), Black is winning because an eventual b4 by White can be answered by ... cxb3. Without the en passant rule, the game would probably be drawn after the following continuation:
49.Kxh8 Kf7 50.d5 cxd5 51.b4 d4 (Rememebr, we are assuming the en passant rule does not exist, otherwise 51. ... cxb3 wins for Black.) 52.b5 dxc3 53.b6 c2 54.b7 c1Q 55.b8Q Qc3+ 56.Qe5 Qxe5+ 57.fxe5 c3 58.e6+ Kxe6 59.Kg8 c2 60.h8=Q c1=Q |
|
Dec-04-06
|
| Peligroso Patzer: <soughzin: Well in chess you must alternate moves and the goal is still basically to capture the king *** > No, the goal in chess is to checkmate the King. |
|
Dec-04-06
 |
| euripides: <soughzin> An interesting point; I had thought that the existing rules of chess were equivalent to the 'capturing the king' objective and I think you're right that stalemate is the only major exception. It would be interesting to find out how the game would change in practice if stalemate were treated as victory. It would probably lead to more victories, though it might in some cases deter positional sacrifices since a pawn sacrifice would become much riskier. It might even make the starting position a theoretical win for White, though I doubt it. |
|
| Dec-04-06 |
| soughzin: That's what I meant by basically. Think of in war: The medival armies march into battle and finally the victorious force surrounds the king, but don't kill him, they just announce that the next step they get to take the king will die and the war is over(checkmate). Doesn't make as much sense as capturing/killing the king. Now stalemate would be like the army goes Near the king and since the king can't step into the opposing force's path, its a tie, and they have a nice feast together, very realistic lol. |
|
Dec-04-06
 |
| artemis: If stalemate were taken away as a drawing resource, then first of all, chess would have to be radically re-evaluated. White begins the game with advantage, and by decreasing the drawing resources for the inferior side, one would logically make the advantage of having the white pieces even greater. I think that this is the last thing that chess needs. Obviously white could benefit from the drawing opportunities (see this game as an example!), but all and all, white typically gains an edge, so most favorable endgames will be white's (indeed, the variations of exchange slavs, exchange ruy lopez etc will become much more fearsome!). Kramnik's playing style will become even stronger, which for the general observer would make chess much more boring. A counter to <soughzin>'s very intriguing argument could be formed as follows. Since the goal of chess is to checkmate the opposing king, if the game was stopped from reaching this conclusion, then it would logically be a null result. Or in a more chess-like manner, a stalemate shows the advantage of piece location and piece harmony over mere numbers. This game's drawing tool is very aesthetically appealling. Just as Adolf Andersson's Immortal Game is aestetically pleasing since he has sacrifced everything besides three pieces, and a handful of pawns, while his opponent has only lost a couple of his own pawns, yet Andersson deliver's checkmate. Since Andersson delivered the checkmate, he is considered the winner, even though he would be crushed if the remaining pieces on the board were put in their initial positions and the game was played out from there. In this game in particular, black should have had an easy win (up two pawns, which are connected passers!, but instead his king came under an attack. Stalemates and draws by repetition force the superior side to be accurate and to have shown a clear superiority over their opponent. The drawing rule which I find to be absurd is the 50 move rule, as it has been shown that ignoring this rule, there are endgames which are forced wins, but beyond 50 moves. I can see a similar argument for it to the one I just gave in support of stalemates, but I still think that if a checkmate can be forced with no unnatural break (i.e. passing a move), that it should be allowed. |
|
Dec-04-06
|
| Peligroso Patzer: <euripides: <soughzin> An interesting point; I had thought that the existing rules of chess were equivalent to the 'capturing the king' objective and I think you're right that stalemate is the only major exception. > Another major exception is that a move that puts (or leaves) ones own King in check is illegal. |
|
| Dec-04-06 |
| soughzin: Yes I know what the literal actual rules are. I'm talking about the spirit of the rules and if they were to be changed. Maybe more realistic than stalemate would be that you could "pass" on your turn. Except this would probably just lead to more draws with any sort of zugzwang position both sides having to pass or give up the advantage. I don't deny the beauty of this unique king chase though! |
|
| Dec-04-06 |
| asip87: oh no... hide n seek.. |
|
Dec-04-06
 |
| Sneaky: <Honza Cervenka> <How ridiculous the idea of considering stalemate to be anything else than draw can be demonstrated on a small example.> That's a marvelous example. But one still might be inclined to suggest that stalemate should be a win... for the side being stalemated! I've heard it said that in some parts of the world, a long time ago, that was the fashion. By the way, for more games involving "crazy rooks" see my game collection Game Collection: Crazy Rooks |
|
Dec-04-06
 |
| norami: How about having stalemate between a win and a draw? To avoid fractions, checkmate is worth 4 points, stalemate 3, draw 2, stalemated 1, checkmated 0. |
|
Dec-04-06
|
| euripides: <Another major exception is that a move that puts (or leaves) ones own King in check is illegal.> Of course, but if the players are capable of seeing mates in one and king captures then this makes no difference to the result of the game as such moves will lose anyway and won't usually be played. The fact that stalemate is a draw makes a big difference to the character of many endgames. |
|
Dec-04-06
 |
| ajile: lol
Great game. White chases the Black king forever. TAKE ME! TAKE ME! |
|
Dec-04-06
|
| Whack8888: <artemis> I agree with you about the 50 move rule. Does anyone know when the 50 move rule came into existence? I personally dont see any problem with the stalemate rule. With checkmate, the attacking army attacks the King, and he has no escape. With a stalemate, the opposing army has not attacked the King, but the one player has no legal moves. It might make sense to not have a stalemate be a draw, but the stalemater should not be given any bonus. Perhaps to simply cancel the game would be more appropriate, since an illegal situation was set up on the board. |
|
Dec-04-06
 |
| WannaBe: <Whack8888> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_... It says, in 1561 Mr. Ruy Lopez wrote something on it. |
|
| Dec-04-06 |
| hucknoog: <4daluvofchess> <Also, I am surprised few people have pointed out that it is impossible to "force stalemate" in a lost position.> For all you chess historians out there - as <Sneaky> alluded - once upon a time (in England) the stalemated player was awarded a WIN! Apparently Philip Stamma published a book in 1745 with a chess problem looking for a forced stalemate to steal the win. If anybody knows the board position, please share! |
|
| Dec-04-06 |
| GrandPatzerSCL: I am very sure that this game was a GOTD once before... Am I right? |
|
| Apr-20-07 |
| Themofro: For the record, in the very fascinating game of chinese chess (not to be confused with chinese checkers), if one side has no legal move, then the opponent wins the game. There is no such thing as checkmate, yet there is no argument by the players that they feel that this gives the first side to move too big of an advantage. |
|
| Aug-15-07 |
| zaxcvd: I have tried chinese chess, and there are HUGE differences between that and regular chess. The way this game plays out stalemate needs to be a win - the palace is surrounded etc. Chess just feels like a bigger and more complex game. The stalemate is the most beautiful AND LOGICAL part of chess - I am disapointed that so many here are so ignorant of basic chess principles. It was also an IMPROVEMENT of the old rules that stalemate was a loss. I explained this to a kid the other day - makes perfect sense: the objective is to kill the opposing side's king. You NEVER make a move to allow your own king to be killed. So, if you can't move , you kill your own king. This war is about capturing (or killing )the opponent's king not about invasion. So obvious draw - you failed your objective to checkmate (or put more simplistic: to kill) your opp king. Take the 'war' that everyone talks about. Its a draw. US vs bin laden.. he can kill himself or die by disease but if he is captured that is a win. |
|
| Jan-05-09 |
| WhiteRook48: what an extraordinary rook and king dance at the end! |
|
| Feb-06-09 |
| WhiteRook48: that a3 pawn was so useful... *sigh* |
|
| Mar-18-09 |
| WhiteRook48: musical chairs |
|
| Jul-26-09 |
| WhiteRook48: or a merry-go-round |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
