< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 7 ·
|Feb-13-06|| ||aw1988: Ahhhhh, Mondays. With the excess of pawns it's really the only move one should ever consider...|
|Feb-13-06|| ||CAPA2422: <confuse>
I think that enough poeple in the world play the stalemate rule.
Every major Chess Tournament does, even the World Champion matches
except that as a rule, probably simply because it is. I have never heard of
Chinese Chess, does it really exist? When topalove won, he won at chess!
Not latin american chess or bulgarian chess just chess.
Are there any big chinese chess tournaments or even a world/country
chines chess tournament. I am confused about "Chinese Chess", sounds
like something made up. Or "Chinese Chess" isnt the real name of the game
that you are talking about.
Like you, I am confused. (pun)
|Feb-13-06|| ||CAPA2422: Do you mean Chinese Checkers instead. LOL|
|Feb-13-06|| ||WannaBe: Chinese chess is different from western chess, or just plain chess. If my memory serves me correct, there is a 'river' on the board in Chinese chess.|
The pieces in the very first picture, is the setup of the pieces before play.
The middle of the board is where the 'river' is. And immediate behind it, is the five soldiers (pawns). followed by 2 cannons.
That last row (crowded one) is where the officers are. I guess you can say the quivalent of knights, rooks, etc...
|Feb-13-06|| ||Parriotblue: Rook endgames are very difficult and there are positions with 2 pawns up that no one can win. I think 57. ... Rh3 was a mistake and take White back in the game. 57... Rg4 maybe could win. The idea is keep the White king in third rank and advance the h pawn with support of g pawn and king. But the technique is very difficult yet.|
|Feb-13-06|| ||4daluvofchess: <CAPA2422> I have never played it, but yes- there is a game dubbed "Chinese Chess", extremely popular in China and other Asian Countries. However, it is overshadowed not so much by "Western" chess but by Go- the oldest game in the world as played "in its present form".|
If you've ever seen the incredible Jackie Chan movie "The Drunken Master", in the beginning of the movie(remake at least) Chan plays a game which I believe is Chinese Chess (again, I have never seen or played it, but I think his father scolds him for "too much chess")...
|Feb-13-06|| ||Marco65: <al wazir> Nice trick. I think you know that your position is illegal, since what would have been White's last move?|
Anyway, you're just trying to prove that stalemate=win would lead to absurd situations. But such situations would be very rare, while the stalemate=draw rule much often saves from a due defeat a player that has been outplayed during the whole game.
Other have written that if a player overlooks a stalemate trick he doesn't deserve to win. I don't agree with that. It's like if you are going to win a 100 meters race. When you are arriving first someone moves the target line another 100 meters ahead. And if you don't arrive first this time someone tells you "ha ha, you see, you didn't deserve to win". Ok, if you are very good you'll still win the race, but why needing to continuously prove something?
The stalemate rule makes winning a "win game" harder, and the result more dependend to oversights than it would be without. I like it because it makes the game more funny, but it's not at all logical or fair.
|Feb-13-06|| ||YouRang: Hi <Marco65>. I'm afraid I have to call the <analogy police>. I don't quite see how your analogy with the 100 meter race fits. Both side know where this finish line is before the race begins (i.e. checkmate) and that line never moves. A race is kind of a bad analogy anyway, because you generally don't have draws.|
I think <al wazir>'s points are sound. Evidently, you don't because stalemate is often a "trick" to save an outplayed player from defeat. But then, what about the "perpetual check" trick? Would you say that this should not be treated as a draw either? After all, it is also often used to save the player with a worse position.
Back to stalemate: What about the common K+P vs. K endgame where white's pawn is on the h file? We know that if black's king can get to h8 first, he can block the promotion. But if white continues to push the pawn he can force a stalemate. Do you think black should suffer a defeat even though he successfully blocked the pawn promotion?
|Feb-13-06|| ||Jim Bartle: The analogy police? I'm going to have to go on the lam.|
|Feb-13-06|| ||al wazir: <Marco65: I think you know that your position is illegal, since what would have been White's last move?>|
Starting with the position
click for larger view
(again, don't ask me to justify it), the moves are 1...cxb2+ 2. Kb1.
Black's a,b,c,d,e,and f pawns would have had to make a total of 11 captures to reach the final position. Since white started with 15 pawns and pieces besides his , this is perfectly legal.
|Feb-13-06|| ||shirova: <CAPA2422> If you think "Chinese Chess" sounds like something made up, do a decent search at any search engine and you'll find the truth. Chinese chess is very popular in among Chinese and some Asian communities around the world, they have world champion and a much more organised world championships than the current chess that you know.|
|Feb-13-06|| ||fred lennox: Chinese chess is not made up and maybe be older than western chess. There is also japanese chess. Both very popular in their countries. Both excellent games in my opinion.|
|Feb-13-06|| ||suenteus po 147: Very cute: "White to Play" (and...!) The position looked hopeless until I recognized that it was a stalemate puzzle. Maybe this week's theme is saving lost positions.|
|Feb-13-06|| ||MorphyMatt: <al wazir> lol! excellent position!|
|Feb-13-06|| ||jackpawn: Found immediately! If you have even fallen into this trap/theme,(I have!) it sticks with you forever.|
|Feb-13-06|| ||snowie1: A race without yo draws can get yo in
|Feb-13-06|| ||snowie1: The computer is really good at finding a draw like this. Who said something about a race with no draws?
Get back here, yo shamless hussy.LOL!|
|Feb-14-06|| ||OBIT: I'm getting a little late into this stalemate discussion, but I've been involved in this debate before - and yes, I see I saved my opinion piece on it. I'll throw my own two cents in by taking some stuff from that article: |
A stalemate occurs when a player is not in check, but his position is so dire he cannot make a single move without exposing his king to capture. The verdict in this scenario: Drawn. Now, think about this objectively for a moment. Does this result make sense to you? If a golfer hits a ball so far into the woods he has no shot, would it make sense to award him a par? If a boxer has been pummeled to the point where he can no longer defend himself, would it make sense to call the fight a draw? Clearly, the rule is illogical. Far more logical would be to treat a stalemate position is a kind of "zugzwang checkmate" - the king, under compulsion to move, must surrender in lieu of throwing himself to the wolves.
Aside from eliminating an illogical rule, awarding a win for a stalemate would have the added benefit of reducing draws, a definite problem in top level chess. Now, some players will say to that, "Oh, come on. I've been playing tournament chess for years, and I've never had a game end in stalemate. I doubt one game in 5,000 does. The increase in decisive games would be trivial." Well, actually that's not true - stalemates are a lot more prevalent than you might think. Many textbook draws - king plus pawn vs. king, for example - are drawn because playing out the position would ultimately lead to stalemate. The stalemate never actually occurs on the board because the ending is never played out to the point of stalemate. So, make stalemates a win for the stronger side and you'll see a tangible drop in the percentage of drawn games.
Now, some folks fond of irony like to argue that eliminating stalemates would INCREASE the number of draws. No, that's as absurd as it sounds. If you believe that taking away stalemates would increase the number of draws because players would take fewer risks, then you must also believe that removing seat belts from automobiles would reduce fatal accidents, because it would encourage drivers to be more cautious. Anyway, the "tangible drop" when stalemate = win is probably only a few percentage points. For exampe, most pawn down R+P endgames don't require the stalemate rule to hold the draw. So, I doubt that eliminating stalemates will discourage the sacrificial maniacs.
In short, I'm in agreement with those who think a stalemate should be a win. However, if a compromise is more workable, here's another suggestion I've seen in print: make a stalemate worth more than a draw but less than a win. For example, a stalemate could be worth .7 to the stalemater, .3 to the stalematee. Actually, that sounds like a worthwhile idea - it retains the elements of stalemate for the diehard purists, and it adds a new element to the scoring system. If this .7/.3 result for a game ending in stalemate is adopted, maybe you'll see fewer of those 6-way ties at the end of a weekend Swiss.
|Feb-14-06|| ||OhioChessFan: <If you've ever seen the incredible Jackie Chan movie "The Drunken Master", >|
I thought that was a biography of Alekhine?
|Feb-14-06|| ||Marco65: <OBIT> I can only agree with your points, except maybe with the idea of rewarding 0.7 points to the stalemater. Chess is complex enough.|
<al wazir> You're right! You could make a contest on who can create a legal chess game ending with that position!
<YouRang> Of course many endgames would change value, so what?
Don't worry nobody will ever change such rules, but I'm sure that if chess were invented today from scratch the king could be taken, the stalemate would be a win, the en passant would not exist and probably the king would already be in a safe position at the beginning.
And notwithstanding these simplification nobody would play it, because it would be deemed too complex for a modern game!
The only rule that wouldn't change would be the draw by repetition, there isn't simply any other solution because you can't decide who is guilty for the repetition.
|Feb-14-06|| ||Richerby: <dzechiel> Your history of en passant is correct but the move is still inconsistent. Surely, if White plays, say, pawn e2-e4 and Black has a knight on f5, he should be allowed to play xe3 en passant? :-)|
(Not that I have any objection to the existence of the en-passant rule, of course.)
|Feb-14-06|| ||4daluvofchess: <Richerby> Your analogy about the knight does not have anything to with what dzechiel said. In fact, your statement makes absolutely no sense (if one piece can do something and another can't, that makes the rule "inconsistent"??).|
If, on the other hand (as dzechiel said) a knight on f5 using the old rules could take the pawn on e4, and (after the rule change) could now take another pawn in a a similar situation (Nf6 could take a pawn on e5, etc) then the rule would be valid.
The en passant rule is completely consistent and logical, as the idea that pawns can restrain the advance of other pawns is much more important than any superficial "inconsistencies"...
|Feb-14-06|| ||YouRang: <Marco65><<YouRang> Of course many endgames would change value, so what?>
Thanks for the response, but it would have been more interesting to me had it actually answered my questions.|
|Feb-14-06|| ||Gypsy: <...if chess were invented today ... the en passant would not exist ...> Position lock up too easily without en-passant.|
|Feb-14-06|| ||YouRang: <OBIT> and <Marco65> re <Stalemate>: Since we're making <analogies with other sports>, how about baseball?|
The game could be tied 0-0 after 9 innings, even though team A got several more hits than team B. Maybe team A got runners to 3rd base several times, and team B only got a few runners to first base. Should we award the win to team A?
I would answer, "no". However you look at it, either team A failed to capitalize on their opportunities, or team B successfully stopped them.
There is nothing wrong with the simple rule that says to win, you must checkMATE. Checkmate is clearly superior to stalemate, so it makes sense to call checkmate a win and stalemant a non-win.
However, stalemate ISN'T clearly superior to say, drawing by perpetual check, or drawing by building a fortress, or drawing by lack of force (K vs K+2N), so it doesn't make sense to call stalemate a win, yet leave these other cases as non-wins.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 7 ·