DRAW - Why??
Sort:
doggo6912
Jul 16, 2024
0
#81
Stalemate means opponent has nowhere to move
Jul 17, 2024
0
#82
Its called stalemate. Your opponent had no legal moves to play. It is pretty annoying tbh
Jul 17, 2024
0
#83
idk13243 wrote:
Its called stalemate. Your opponent had no legal moves to play. It is pretty annoying tbh
ikr
Jul 24, 2024
0
#84
nklristic wrote:
MelvinGarvey wrote:
"stalemate" is confusing a word, since "checkmate" would be "shamat" in Persian, which means "the King is dead". It's not hard to figure out then, that "mat" means "dead". And "check" means then "King", as in, the King is under attack.
So, in French, we use the term "pat" (in place of "stalemate"). I don't know where this word is coming from, but it allows for a French speaking chess coach/teacher, to explain: "no check, no mate", which makes it a clear and simple explaination of the difference between checkmate and stalemate imo.
Not that it matters that much, but we use "pat" in Serbia as well. The origin , as far as I understand is "echec pat" from French. In Italian it is "patto".
“pat” in Russian as well. So “pat” is slavic
Nyutixbrother wrote:
nklristic wrote:
MelvinGarvey wrote:
"stalemate" is confusing a word, since "checkmate" would be "shamat" in Persian, which means "the King is dead". It's not hard to figure out then, that "mat" means "dead". And "check" means then "King", as in, the King is under attack.
So, in French, we use the term "pat" (in place of "stalemate"). I don't know where this word is coming from, but it allows for a French speaking chess coach/teacher, to explain: "no check, no mate", which makes it a clear and simple explaination of the difference between checkmate and stalemate imo.
Not that it matters that much, but we use "pat" in Serbia as well. The origin , as far as I understand is "echec pat" from French. In Italian it is "patto".
“pat” in Russian as well. So “pat” is slavic
Almost certainly not slavic.
The most likely source is Italian "patto", and the source of that is Latin "pactum". From there, it spread to almost every language except English.
Jul 24, 2024
0
#86
magipi wrote:
Nyutixbrother wrote:
nklristic wrote:
MelvinGarvey wrote:
"stalemate" is confusing a word, since "checkmate" would be "shamat" in Persian, which means "the King is dead". It's not hard to figure out then, that "mat" means "dead". And "check" means then "King", as in, the King is under attack.
So, in French, we use the term "pat" (in place of "stalemate"). I don't know where this word is coming from, but it allows for a French speaking chess coach/teacher, to explain: "no check, no mate", which makes it a clear and simple explaination of the difference between checkmate and stalemate imo.
Not that it matters that much, but we use "pat" in Serbia as well. The origin , as far as I understand is "echec pat" from French. In Italian it is "patto".
“pat” in Russian as well. So “pat” is slavic
Almost certainly not slavic.
The most likely source is Italian "patto", and the source of that is Latin "pactum". From there, it spread to almost every language except English.
But the root is still “pat”
Aug 1, 2024
0
#88
stalemate can be such a bother- like i feel as if i could still win but then it says stalemate??
kurashi606 wrote:
stalemate can be such a bother- like i feel as if i could still win but then it says stalemate??
The root of the problem is that you don't know what stalemate is. It's very hard to avoid something if you don't know what it is.
You can find the explanation even here in this thread. Or just google it.
Aug 2, 2024
0
#90
Ah, the beauty of stalemates. They make you think harder. If it's just a win, you might as well have just went out doing it with no difficulty. The main purpose is to give hope that he/she can save the game (on the losing side), or, if winning, make him/her use her mind a bit more.
As Microsoft Copilot says:
"Stalemates play a crucial role in chess for several reasons:
Strategic Depth: Stalemates add a layer of complexity to the game. They can turn a seemingly lost position into a draw, offering a lifeline to the player in a weaker position.
Defensive Tactics: Understanding stalemates can significantly enhance a player’s defensive strategies. Players can aim for a stalemate to avoid a loss, especially in endgame scenarios.
Psychological Impact: The psychological effect of a stalemate is profound. For the player who secures a stalemate from a losing position, it can be a morale booster. Conversely, for the player who misses a win due to a stalemate, it can be quite disheartening.
Game Balance: Stalemates ensure that the game rewards precise and careful play. They prevent a player from winning simply by having a material advantage, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning and execution.
Educational Value: For beginners and even advanced players, studying stalemates can provide valuable lessons in positioning and the importance of each move.
Overall, stalemates contribute to the richness and depth of chess, making it a game of not just skill but also resilience and strategic foresight."
Stalemate:
Means that you have nowhere to move or the only piece to move and got eaten. When your trap and nowhere to move that is a Stalemate. And the last one is if you only have one move left and the opponent traps you and the opponent is not checking you but trapping you its a Stalemate.
Draw:
Means you and your opponent keeps going to the same place its a Draw. Another one, when your opponent and you reaches 50 moves its a 50-move rule or a Draw. but if you or the opponent checks it will start to the beginning to number 1 move.
Checkmate:
Means you or your opponent check you and nowhere to move its a Checkmate. Or if a powerful piece and its protected and goes to king it is also Checkmate.
Thats all of the things in chess. Thank you for reading this.
Aug 3, 2024
0
#93
I only play the bots and one thing the bots seemed to be very good at is maneuvering their king into stalemate positions. Once the king is the only piece that can move, alarm bells need to be going off all over the place. So it is critical to always see if the king can move to a safe square in the case you can't checkmate them on your move.
I have had more stalemates than I care to admit, but generally it is because I stopped paying attention (way ahead) , I miscalculated that the king could move somewhere safe, or I let the king get to an endgame position where stalemate is the only outcome. Frustrating, but it is just the way it is.
Hello
Rocky64 wrote:
bernatbosch7 wrote:
A simple question: are the rules in chess a sacred thing, like the bible, or is it possible to debate the substance of the matter? Are the laws something we have to obey, as simple slaves with no option to think for ourselves, or can we think them and remake them? That's the question.
"Chess rules are indeed not set in stone, and FIDE, the organisation responsible for them, changed the 50-move rule relatively recently. But the 'stalemate = a draw' rule is one of the basic ones that haven't been changed for at least 200 years, and it's safe to assume there are good reasons.
I think one reason is the simple elegance of having checkmate as the only goal. If stalemate is a win too, then that would introduce an inconsistency, in that a stalemated king is not even under attack whereas a checkmated king has to be under attack by definition. That is, two different goals.
There are more practical reasons for why we won't see stalemate becoming a win. Such a rule change would instantly make thousands and thousands of instructional books, articles, and lessons faulty. Endgame theory would also change significantly and so a lot of endgame books, etc. will become obsolete."
Wizzaa417's Comment:
"But what is a King without his Kingdom. I believe that forcing the enemy opponent into a position where he cant make a legal move should be just as good as checkmating. It is essentially the same thing, the King can't make a move. It's clear that a player gained that positioin buy playing the game of chess better than the opponent, so it should definitely not be draw. Also the would be winner is penalized with each piece he still has on the board bcus it will be more like to cause a stalemate, rather than a closer battle. I think this rule is vrey dumb, and makes no sense if I ever play irl im not abiding with that rule.
PJSKVocaloid_39 wrote:
Ah, the beauty of stalemates. They make you think harder. If it's just a win, you might as well have just went out doing it with no difficulty. The main purpose is to give hope that he/she can save the game (on the losing side), or, if winning, make him/her use her mind a bit more.
As Microsoft Copilot says:
"Stalemates play a crucial role in chess for several reasons:
Strategic Depth: Stalemates add a layer of complexity to the game. They can turn a seemingly lost position into a draw, offering a lifeline to the player in a weaker position.
Defensive Tactics: Understanding stalemates can significantly enhance a player’s defensive strategies. Players can aim for a stalemate to avoid a loss, especially in endgame scenarios.
Psychological Impact: The psychological effect of a stalemate is profound. For the player who secures a stalemate from a losing position, it can be a morale booster. Conversely, for the player who misses a win due to a stalemate, it can be quite disheartening.
Game Balance: Stalemates ensure that the game rewards precise and careful play. They prevent a player from winning simply by having a material advantage, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning and execution.
Educational Value: For beginners and even advanced players, studying stalemates can provide valuable lessons in positioning and the importance of each move.
Overall, stalemates contribute to the richness and depth of chess, making it a game of not just skill but also resilience and strategic foresight."
"Losing player can aim stalmeate to avoid a loss"." Here's an idea don't get in the losing position in first place, just play the game from there, there will still be comebacks and turnarounds.""
Wizzaa417's comment:
"Players who gain a material advantage have already proven their superiority on the board with their strategy and execution. Also being penalized for a material advantage (bcus it gives the losing opponent more chances to stalemate) is antithetical to the purpose of the game, but that is often the case in stalemate/draws.
It does not add to the richness and depth of chess. The rule actually makes no sense when thinking about two warring Kingdoms. A king who is stranded and being pursued is as good as dead as a King under the knife, with an entire Kingdom by his side. Sure it gives a whole new thing to think about, but it is not needed for chess to be the greatest board game of all time.
If a player cannot make a legal move while not under direct attack he should still be forfeited, and take the L. Perhaps he could lose less elo points or less tournament points however those are done, and conversely for the Winner, BUT IT IS DEFINITELY NOT A DRAW!!!"
Oct 7, 2024
0
#98
It technically counts as a stalemate as they have no legal moves. I think stalemate really counts as a draw as a way to punish the person with the advantage for not being good enough to checkmate. It also kinda makes things more interesting.
CavanPawn wrote:
Checkmate=no escape from check.
Stalemate=any move puts you in check.
The first part is right, the second part is incomplete. A stalemate just means that a person has no legal moves, but isn't in check. It doesn't necessarily mean any move would result in check. For example, black to move....