Chess is a more interesting game with the stalemate rule. With the stalemate rule, the guy who’s “winning” has to be careful not just against blundering into a loss, but more subtly, blundering into a stalemate.
I think it makes perfect sense. Remember that in chess there is only one way to determine who wins: checkmate. A huge material or positional advantage does not enter into that equation, you can still win even if you’re down some big pieces or you’re position is shot to hell, as long as you can capture the opponent’s king. In the case of a stalemate, you’ve been unable to do that, and you’re opponent has been unable to do that as well, hence: a draw.
This is true.
As Malacandra said, all King+Pawn v King endings become wins (many are drawn with correct play (see also my position in post 18.)
This in turn means that being a pawn up in an ending gives you huge winning chances (even where current analysis gives a draw with best play.)
King and 2 Knights v King becomes a forced win (it’s a book draw)
But I think what the OP is asking is, in effect, why not get rid of the concepts of “checkmate” and “stalemate”, and have the object of the game be to actually capture the king just like you would capture any other piece? In your example, the player with just a king would lose to the player with king and pawn, which seems like a fair outcome to me.
As **Cheesesteak **said, the example you gave of a side with material advantage finding itself in stalemate could only be arrived at through deliberately bad play. In practice, the player with material advantage would win, under “no stalemate” rules.
And in turn having pawn weakness is more of a disadvantage (which is the sort of thing I had in mind), because it will be harder to turn, for example, an eventual loss of a pawn into a loss of a pawn that retains drawing chances.
Winner.
Because the checkmate game is more interesting than the capture-the-king game. In the checkmate game, you’re required to force the opponents king to be capturable, rather than simply being allowed to win should your opponent happen to blunder into letting his king be captured.
The object of the game is to capture the king, just like any other piece (except that the king is protected insofar as moves that put or leave your king in check are illegal) - that is what checkmate is: when no move you can make will result in avoiding the capture of your king by the opponent on the next move. In a stalemate, however, the king has not been captured and will not be captured on the next move (ie is not in check), and as a result neither player meets the winning condition, so a draw is the best solution. Whether the player that causes the stalemate (the one that puts the other player in a position where they can’t make another move) has a material advantage or not, is beside the point, since a material advantage is not the equivalent of capturing the opponent’s king.
Stalemate does seem like a bit of a strange rule. I think that chess with stalemate counted as a win would probably be a fine game.
Actually, it would probably simplify the game as well. I think the simplest way to implement it would be to make it legal for the king to move into check, and change the winning condition from checkmate into the actual capture of the king.
I wonder if it would still be possible to still have a stalemate position under such a rule change. Thinking about it quickly, I don’t see how. I can see one way to construct such a position:
White: Bf1, Rg1, Kh1, Rh2, pawns e2, g2, h3
Black: pawns e3, f2, g3, h4, King somewhere
White has no moves, but there’s no way for white to have gotten himself into this position, since the second rook can’t have gotten into the corner, as the bishop has never moved.
Why?
I’m sorry to be a bit ‘crabby’, but the support for this idea seems to come only from people who don’t play much chess and make unsupported statements like:
- “in a stalemate one player is clearly in an inferior position”
- “the player in the stronger position has made a dumb move”
- “In a system where a stalemate is a win, black’s having gotten himself in that situation is a tactical blunder”
- “it makes sense that the player who can’t make a move without losing his King is the one who deserves to lose the game”
- “a side with material advantage finding itself in stalemate could only be arrived at through deliberately bad play”
- “In practice, the player with material advantage would win, under “no stalemate” rules”
OK, let’s try another simple position. Black to move
This is a typical ending (I’ve actually seen it in a game) and the position is a draw under current stalemate rules.
White can’t be stopped from promoting; Black gives up his Rook for the new Queen and it’s all over.
Under the proposed system, the game ends in a win for Black:
- … Rh8
- Kxh8 Kf7 (if White plays 2. Kg6 Kf8 wins for Black as the pawn soon falls.)
So here we have a refutation of every statement above:
- the stalemated (losing) player is ahead on material
- nobody has made a dumb move
- why on earth does White deserve to lose the game?
I can’t help feeling that most posters don’t know about the thousands of composed studies showing beautiful forced lines of play ending in stalemate; nor how knowing which positions are ultimately drawn by stalemate affects your play in the middle-game onwards.
Simple fix: if a player’s king is taken, and he could have made another move, he is allowed to retract his move. Unlikely that a serious player would make such a blunder, besides.
Švejk, with all due respect your argument seems to be a case of “begging the question”, to me. It seems like you’re saying that stalemate/checkmate (they amount to the same thing) is better, because it is.
The object of the game is not “to capture the king just like any other piece”. That is the whole premise of this debate.
Here’s an example of a stalemate line in a study - the Saavedra position.
The brilliant play goes:
- c7 Rd6+
- Kb5 Rd5+
- Kb4 Rd4+
- Kb3 Rd3+
- Kc2 Rc4!
- c8=R! Ra4
- Kb3 1-0
If 6. c8=Q Rc4+!
7. Qxc4 stalemate.
I don’t want to lose stuff like this to a rule change…
It feels like an added on rule that doesn’t flow naturally from the basic premise of the game. For the same reason, checkmate is a strange rule too.
Think about teaching someone the rules of chess. You need to explain something like “the object is to capture your opponent’s king, except you don’t really capture it - you create a position where you could capture it if it were your move, and there’s no way for your opponent to avoid it”. It would be much simpler, and in my opinion more natural, to just say “the object is to capture your opponent’s king”.
This is not to say that standard chess is bad, but I think we’re just used to the normal rules. Slightly modified versions of chess would probably make fine games as well, and maybe better in some ways.
It is:
White: Ka8, Nb8, pawns a7,a6,b7,c6,d7
Black: Nd8, Kh1
The position is legal, a6 pawn is from the b file (via capturing), b7 from the c file and so on.
Good grief. :smack:
The Laws of Chess say that you cannot put your King into check.
Therefore you’re not “allowed to win should your opponent happen to blunder into letting his king be captured.”
(I’m not counting blitz chess where any illegal move loses because time is so short.)
And there is no need for any ‘fix’. No King ever gets 'taken’.
And any serious player would know the rules…
I am not saying they are better necessarily, although I think they are; what I am saying is that given that the aim of the game is to checkmate the other player, ie to force capture of the king on the next move, it logically follows that a stalemate should be a draw. I am not certain how you can claim that a stalemate and a checkmate amount to the same thing when they are clearly and fundamentally different.
You are saying just that, though. The object of the game is to capture the opponent’s King; if it becomes clear that this will happen on the next move the game is over, there is no reason to play that last move and go through the motions of actually physically capturing the king, but if we did do that, that would not logically alter the game. Checkmate, then, is in no sense a ‘strange rule’, and if the object of the game is to capture the king, and stalemate is a situation in which neither player has accomplished that, then clearly the stalemate rule does flow from the basic premise of the game naturally.
A few years ago FIDE amended the rules so that if a player took a king in blitz, they lost. A convention among some players was that taking the king was a way to indicate the illegal move, and thus the loss. The idea of FIDE, I guess, was that taking the king made it harder to figure out who made the illegal move. It wasn’t a very popular rule change, but I presume it is still in effect. The only way capturing a king enters the rules is via it being a loss for the person that captures.
ETA- So contra the above post, the object is to checkmate, *not *to capture.
No, this is exactly the point I’m making.
“Why is does this rule exist?”
“Because that’s how the game is played.”
“Okay, why is the game played that way?”
“Because that’s what the rule says.”
Hopefully, you can see this isn’t answering the question.