Holy hell
Other chess communities:
[email protected]
[email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/25112863
Source unknown, some sites assign it to Oppressive Silence comics by Ethan Vincent. But that website in the corner is shady
Ugh, Lemmy is full of stale content.
(Edit: it's a joke. Stalemate/stale content...I chuckled at, and upvoted, the post.)
You got 3 posts, no complaining.
Oh I wasn't complaining, I was making a bad joke (the cartoon is a stalemate).
You got me, upvote
Stupidest rule in chess.
It almost never happens randomly, it has to be forced by the losing player and it's not easy to do it so I think it's a valid way of saving the game.
It happens randomly quite often in low elo games
Why
Without the stalemate rule then there's not much any point in continuing to play once you're in a poor enough position. You'd literally be wasting both players times waiting in vain for your opponent to irrecoverably blunder hard enough to turn the match, which may be impossible if you're out of enough pieces.
With the stalemate rule although you may no longer be able to win, you can still do something so your final outcome is better than a loss. The losing player still has a reason to keep playing. The game is overall more interesting to play and watch by having the stalemate rule than it would be without.
I don't agree. I think the game is more interesting if it's a new game after the other won
Ratings matter, though. A stalemate means your rating doesn't decrease as much as it would have if you'd lost, and you get to take some of your opponent's rating in the process.
Yes, and a stalemate is not good gameplay. Rating for the stake of finding out who is best as a competition often means sacrificing some of the fun because the rules would be abused. I don't have to change what I think is most fun due to any of those things, and downvoting or explaining why does also not change my opinion. If that is what you want, then explain to me the fun part of spending end game trying to abuse stalemate, and avoiding stalemate versus playing the rest of the game. If the rest is more fun, it's obvious why most give up in this game unless it is a tourney. Because this rule is just not good gameplay in terms of fun and enjoyment. I just think there could be other solutions.
The first part of your comment doesn't justify the second part. But it also isn't true that it rarely happens randomly. It rarely happens randomly in high-ranked games. Bad rules like stalemate have a much stronger effect on low ranked games, which is what most people play.
Stalemates and forcing draws are pretty important imo as someone who dosen't play and only watch. It's gave the game a twist that let the losing player a way to fight back from a loosing position to a draw (that feels like a win).
They are an important part of the game, but they aren't a good twist. If you got rid of stalemate, then the losing player would just resign. Nothing wrong with that in a game that's effectively over.
The reason I think stalemate makes the game more interesting is it gives an out to the losing player.
Suppose a game where black just lost their last piece (outside of the king). With the stalemate rule, white still needs to be careful and skillful in executing their checkmate to actually win the game. Giving black some way even in a losing situation to get theirself into a better outcome than a flat out loss. It allows more opportunities for games to reach their natural conclusion in a way that still allows both players to do something to get a better outcome.
And I don't know about you, but I think a game that could end up as a draw right up until the end is a more interesting game to play and much more entertaining to watch than watching 30 turns of white maintaining an early all the way to the midgame when black decides it's just a waste of time at this point and resigns.
I can understand that if you don't play the fucking game you don't mind the trapped safe king.
The first part of my comment entirely justifies the second part. It's a strategy a skilled player currently losing can use to avoid the loss, not a fluke. And no, it also doesn't randomly happen on low ranked games unless by low ranked you mean "absolute beginners who didn't even know about the rule".
There's a whole level of players who simply weren't thinking about stalemate at the moment. They know the rule, they just weren't thinking. Trapping the king so he can't move and nothing can be done should be a win.
It shouldn't. The whole point of a check mate is that the king will inevitably be captured. If you're in no position to capture the king, then you can't win.
That's only true because Kings can't move into check. This is an unnecessary rule that, like stalemate, makes little difference to high level players, but is a bad rule for low level players.
You seem to have a thing for calling anything beyond absolute beginners "high level". Stop it.
You'd call most people who play chess "absolute beginners". Most people would hang their king if they could and would never remember the stalemate rule until it was too late.
No, they wouldn't. Anyone who's been playing for like a month knows how to prevent a stalemate.
You ain't lying bruv
Wait. What rule?
If the player in turn is not in check but has no valid moves, the game is declared a draw.
Post before you leave