![]() ![]() Well that single poor move is a great example of why stalemate being a tie IS fair. You yourself said it's NOT fair because of "a single poor move". If you dont like it, win before the peace treaty comes into effect.Īgain you have given good reasons why a stalemate is fair. That same peace treaty that you agreed to in chess is called a draw. A peace treaty (where both sides agree to stop) is a real life rule. Just like in your real life example the rules are the rules. That bad decision, correctly, is what results in the tie. But the rules allowed the side with the advantage to kill the king and win. Sure it's not good for the side that had the huge advantage. That peace treaty was both sides agreeing to the rules of stalemate. They COULD have killed the enemy, but a peace treaty was signed before they killed the king. One side has the ability to kill the opponent, but chooses not to. Lets imagine the pieces suddenly become real human beings. What do you mean the rules dont allow it? If one side has a huge advantage, a thousand swords (or a big material advantage) what rule prevents them from checkmating the opponent? The rules do not REQUIRE one side to allow the other side to get into a stalemate position. So, how to call a draw is a fair outcome, here? I'm sorry, but it is not. And plus, the odds would be totally against the king. Would they kill the king? Its just insane to think otherwise. Lets imagine the pieces suddenly became real human beings. The rules could be more fair and establish that if the king cannot move that's game over for the king. ![]() ![]() They don't do it only because the rules do not allow them to do it. Why should that be considered a victory? If the enemy had a million swords but still refused to kill the king, why should that be considered a victory? They have the firepower, they have everything to kill the enemy king, including a thousand swords. What happens if the army of a thousand swords does not kill the lone opposing king? Sure they have the resources, maybe the time, the skill, the talent. Your other example of an opponent with a thousand swords. Well, in chess, if the king is in stalemate (cannot move) and the opponent kills him with no mercy that's called checkmate. You said in real life war when a king cannot move because he is in stalemate the opponent kills him with no mercy. You brought up some good points, but using your own example explains why stalemate is a draw. And for me, its cristal clear they are not. The question is not what are the rules, here, but are the rules fair or not. Then in this case it should be considered that the threatened player must remain still due to moral imperative but then the attacking player can move and kill him, since he is not impeded. There is no reasonable reason, beyond maintaining a tradition that leads to absurd results, why the rules could not be changed to understand that if one player cannot move without committing suicide, that does not prevent movement to the other. If it were up to me, the rules would be different, because it seems clearly unfair to me that when a thousand swords are against a solitary king, that is not called a technical victory. In a real life war, when a king cannot move because he is stalemate, the opponent kills him with no mercy and so should it be done in the case of a chess play too: the real life in the board. Very early versions of Chess declare the player causing stalemate the winner and even today there are callings to return to that rule. Stalemate is a draw in classical chess yet there are other chess variants both historical and modern where stalemate is not a draw. There's nothing "unfair" about this the rules say that if you don't win, you don't win. There are endgames where one side is up in material, but the game is still theoretically drawn. There are many games where large amounts of material were given up in order to win. Material doesn't ultimately matter in chess, except as a means to reach checkmate. (If you had played Rc6 as your last move instead, you would have won.) Despite your material advantage, you didn't convert it into a checkmate, and so you didn't win. This is what happened in your game, and in chess it's considered a draw. in check), and the player has no legal way of getting out of check: they can't move the king out of check, they can't capture the piece giving check, and they can't block the check.Ī stalemate is when a player has no legal moves, but their king is not in check. In chess, a checkmate is when a player's king is being attacked (i.e. Basically rephrasing/adding on to what Patriot said, the only ways to win in chess are checkmating your opponent, your opponent forfeiting, or your opponent running out of time (assuming you still have sufficient material to mate). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |