glee, I think you may be misundertsanding some of the arguments made here. I know the rules of chess and am not actually proposing some kind of “take back” rule.
And again, it is invalid to use elements of the conclusion of an argument in the argument itself. That is what you and **Švejk **are doing, for example when you cite the law that you cannot put your King into check.
I understand the points about how the possibility of stalemate leads to all kinds of ingenious tactics and strategies. It is a bit like those variants of chess in which rules or constraints are altered, leading to fascinating possibilities. The difference is that the rule about kings not being taken is part of the actual rules of the game proper. It is not clear to me that, had that rule not existed (possibly along with some kind of protetcion against blundering your king away, my suggestion above being merely a first stab at that), chess would not be just as good a game.
I have taught thousands of people the rules of chess. From age 4 to 94 (approx.)
Start with “The object of the game is to capture the enemy King.”
Soon after “You can’t make an illegal move (which includes putting your King in check.)”
Later “Here’s an example of stalemate. Remember I told you you can’t put your king in check? Well you have to leave your opponent a move, otherwise it’s a draw!”
Success rate 100%.
The current moves came in around 500 years ago.
There have been extensive discussions on rule changes since then, including:
new pieces (‘Chancellor’ by Capablanca; ‘Nightrider’ by Dawson; ‘Muckspreader’ by me :D)
new boards (including 3D)
new starting positions (Fischer random)
new scoring system (3 for a win; 1 for draw)
None of these have stopped standard chess being played all over the World (141 countries entered teams in the last Olympiad; over 100,000 games are played daily on just one Internet site.)
So I challenge your statement that ‘modifications would make the game better’!
My opinion is that if your position has been reduced to the point where you can’t make a move without going into check, it’s pretty clear that your position is bad.
I’m saying it seems more logical to say “My position is hopeless. I lose.” rather than “My position is hopeless. It’s a tie.”
I’ll throw out the obvious Monty Python reference. If one guy cuts off the other guy’s arms and legs, it wasn’t a draw. The guy that got his arms and legs cut off lost the fight.
Yeah - post #37 is more accurate in saying that the aim of the game is to force capture of the King, so that situations in which a player puts their king in check or leaves him there are not counted and illegal, except in blitz games.
There clearly is no a priori moral reason why chess is the way it is, and in that sense you are right that saying ‘the aim of the game is so-and-so’ is not an argument in and of itself. I’ve not been interested in making a sort of circular argument that the rules are because that’s how it’s played, and it’s played the way it’s played because that is what the rules are. I *am * interested in showing that, contrary to what people like the OP and Borschevsky seem to be maintaining, the stalemate rule is logically coherent with the rest of the rules of chess and the aim of the game as it is currently understood. Whether that is the best game, and whether there might not be other rule permutations that might make for a more interesting game, is not something that I am considering here. However, my inclination would be to side with glee (who I think is actually a grandmaster and lifelong chess teacher or something like that) because I think that the stalemate is not just some sort of stupid ‘gotcha’ rule that goes against the spirit of chess somehow, but is actually itself part of the spirit of chess, follows logically from the premise of the game, and permeates the strategy of the game throughout.
Apart from blitz chess, a player’s King is never taken. I assumed you didn’t know this.
You discuss a ‘fix of players being allowed to retract after having their king taken’. In chess, if you make an illegal move, you have to retract it.
You say that serious players wouldn’t make such a blunder. It’s not a blunder - it’s an illegal move!
No, it’s not the same! These possiblities exist in the actual game played world-wide.
The current situation is so satisfactory that people spend hours composing positions showing an elegant stalemate. They can win prizes, get published and even be awarded chess composing titles by FIDE.
The object of chess is to capture the King.
(We just don’t bother playing an illegal move when it’s already checkmate.)
The main reason standard chess remains the standard is inertia. All the changes you list (and innumerable others) would result in perfectly enjoyable games. Probably many of them would be “worse” than standard chess (however you might choose to define worse), and probably many of them would be better. The thing that none of the changed versions would have is the history, theory, tradition, etc., of standard chess.
I have not made the claim that modifications would make the game better, but it seems extremely unlikely that there is no change that could be made to the rules of chess that would make it better, for pretty much any normal definition of “better”. The rules of chess are not some platonic ideal handed down to us from god.
This is not correct. The object of the game is to checkmate your opponent, which is not the same thing, as much of this thread is discussing.
where borschevsky was making up unnecessary complications on how to teach chess (which I do professionally.)
There’s nothing wrong with you asking why stalemate can’t be a win. Taking an interest in chess is good.
The reason why this thread is getting … errr … ‘frenetic’ is that folk have gone on from an interesting enquiry to make wild statements about how changing the stalemate rule makes sense because:
“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”
Noe of that is correct.
I’ve tried to show, using actual chess positions (see posts 8, 9, 10, 11 ,18, 31 and 33) how the rule works well in practice and has even inspired people to compose positions using it.
See post #47. In it I concede that ‘the aim of the game is to force capture of the king’ is more appropriate; it is the logical equivalent of ‘to checkmate the king’.
Apparently you find both this rule and the stalemate rule that follows from it ‘strange’ - although I’d be interested in hearing your response to my post #38 in which I address that claim. Frankly, I don’t really see the problem, and it’s almost as though the people that find it objectionable just don’t really like the game as a whole. This is fine, but why bother changing it? It’s like saying - I don’t like football, it should be played on ice by two teams of six players on skates, with a puck instead of a ball.
Cite?
(I’ve shown that many variations have been proposed, tested and rejected in favour of standard chess rules. That is not inertia.)
Cite?
(You don’t even know how my Muckspreader moves… )
Which ones would be better?
(My point is that you’re making a lot of unsupported statements - and around here we like a cite.)
Many have tried - none have succeeded.
The laws of chess have changed several times (see Arabic chess for example.)
Nobody is suggesting you can’t propose changes.
And nobody mentioned God until you did. :eek:
The object of the game is to capture the King. Checkmate is the situation in which this has happened.
That leaves glee’s first point - what does that have to do with chess? What do you find so unsatisfactory about the explanation of the stalemate rule as leading to a draw because neither player meets the win condition?
You’ve come up with a bunch of arguments about that suggest the stalemate rule is some sort of anomaly and necessarily produces an unfair result, but all of those arguments have been shown to be false by glee; and at the same time it’s been shown that the stalemate rule is logically coherent with the rest of the game. So what do you have left to complain about?
Just to get it out of the way, I think chess is a wonderful game; I’ve played hundreds of tournament games and probably tens of thousands of blitz games. I don’t particularly advocate making any changes to the rules of standard chess.
I guess what I’m saying is that if there’s no logical difference between the checkmate rule and a capture the king rule, then why is the checkmate rule necessary? If the basic premise of the game is to capture your opponent’s king, then why introduce a logically equivalent checkmate rule, and make capturing the king (again, the premise of the game) illegal?
Several people have disagreed with the claim that the stalemate rule is logically coherent with the rest of the game. Neither you or glee has proven otherwise. You’ve claimed it but you haven’t proven that claim.
Your arguments about meeting the win conditions and anomaly are just examples of saying that the rule is the rule because it’s the rule. Obviously people use the stalemate rule - it’s part of the existing game. But that doesn’t prove that it has to be a rule or that it should be a rule. It’s just saying that it is a rule.
)