One one hand, you're right, on the other, it's more like knowing a trick and less like a skill comparison. Push the king to the edge with your own king. Then bring in the queen. Very basic, like riding a bike.
I do think that rule makes the game better in that it adds the possibility to play for a stalemate when you’re down.
But, like, thematically? c’mon…they have no ways to move OTHER than that which puts them in check. They should lose. And if they truly don’t have any moves? Skip the turn!
I like to think that in the early days this wasn't a rule. Some king is taught chess and loves it, showing everyone this fascinating new game. Then one day he loses to his jester and comes up with stalemate on the fly. "Er uh well, haha you see, this is a tie!" "A tie, my liege? But I have you defenseless and surrounded." "I SAID ITS A TIE!" "Yes of course, your majesty. Well played."
Stalemate equalling tie is a very recent rule addition if we take the entire history of chess into account. It was only standardized in the 19th century. There's no inherent reason why it should always equal tie, it was just decided at some point.
Stalemate equalling tie is a very recent rule addition if we take the entire history of chess into account. It was only standardized in the 19th century.
Correct me if I’m wrong, and I fully admit I could be wrong, cause I’m dumb.
I mean, you knew that though, yeah? Because I did put out that press release
But I’m just wondering, how is this a stalemate?
Let’s assume it’s white’s turn to move. The king can only move one space and any movement it makes is a checkmate.
So, what if it’s black’s turn? Well, I would say move the Black Queen in front of the Black King…. And it’s checkmate. Because even if the White King takes the queen, the very next move, the black king takes white king. If the white king DOESNT take the Black Queen and tries to move away, the Black Queen can take the white king wherever it moves.
You're not allowed to move your king into check, it's against the rules. So in this position, white simply cannot play a move. There is nothing they are allowed to do...so the game ends in a stalemate, because black doesn't have them in check. No check, no checkmate. If it's black to move then it's mate in 1
Also while we're at it, castling and en passante are also shit rules. The entire point of chess, the reason why it's a famous game that continues to be played after centuries, is because of the emergent complexity from a simple ruleset. You have a very simple way that each piece can move, and you put those simple rules together and it creates a game that is challenging at any level of play from Kindergarteners to chess grandmasters. The idea that you have these magic special cases where the normal rules don't apply and you can do some other shit instead goes against the entire point of the game even existing.
En passant was added at roughly the same time as the double pawn move because it simply wasn't fair. Double pawn move sped up the opening, but removed the opportunity to capture an advancing pawn, so you're allowed to anyways. Does nothing but make the several hour long game get past the opening a few moves faster.
Castling is kinda weird though idk where that comes from
Speeding up the opening ladder by a few moves makes sense when you have a game of standard openings and repeated common plays. We all know how this is going to go, so we can just skip over it. I understand why grandmaster chess players would want that. But if you're looking at the board and just trying to plan ahead, and actually having to think about planning because you haven't memorized by rote all the openings, I think you can understand why that rule would seem arbitrary and absurd to a new player.
For most of the history of the game, chess was a board game you could pull out and just play, and you couldn't have standardized openings, because everyone played with a different ruleset, and that would make the game behave differently, which meant that you always had to think about it. Once chess was standardized, it was standardized in such a way as to accommodate tournament play, and that can be to the detriment of just playing it as a game.
People imagine chess skill as essentially a direct proxy for overall intelligence, perhaps moreso than any other game. But in reality, I think that modern chess has much less intellectual value than it once did. Because the standardization of the game has allowed more of the game to be dominated by rote memorization of specific plays, and the very niche rules that only make sense in the context of very specific conditions created by the very specific rules in use are just a symptom of that.
If it were up to me, chess sets would come with an additional set of fairy pieces in addition to the standard set, and in tournaments, you would have a randomized selection process that would determine what pieces you start with (probably the same for both sides; it would be interesting to play asymmetric games but would require a lot of additional restrictions to keep a balance of equal value pieces). Under those conditions, you would have to actually play the game, and not just work down a ladder of standardized responses, and that would make it unnecessary to introduce rules like en passante and the double pawn move to speed up the game, because you wouldn't just be trying to skip over the boring part, you would be making real and meaningful decisions the whole time.
I think Chess960 is an amazing example of something similar to what you described, where opening theory and memorization are thrown out in favour of planning and calculation. However, even in fairy chess or chess960 the double pawn move has the same effect. What originally would've been two moves is now one, and the other player gets a chance to respond. I guess it mostly comes down to "how hard is it for a new player to learn these things." Personally, I think things like castling and en passant aren't that complicated, but I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who's BEEN playing chess. I don't remember what it's like to be learning. It would also likely depend on who's teaching the new player, and how they go about teaching the more niche rules. If I had manually castled and then the more experienced player did the special move, I'd feel slighted for sure. The pieces move in a really simple way, as you said, so I do wonder how much additional complexity is added teaching special moves in addition to them
You lose at chess when the king is taken from the board. All that stuff about check, and not being able to move your king into check is just bullshit. It's a bunch of extra guidelines. The game can end when the king is without a doubt going to be taken instead of directly when it is.
Either definition means the trapped king loses here. No chess player has ever come up with a logical defense of stalemates.
Yeah, extra guidelines as in the rules of the game. The king isn't going to be taken because it'll never be black's turn because white can't play. Sometimes "it's how the game works" is the only defense a rule needs, just don't fuck up and it won't matter
It's kinda audacious to think that the literally millions of people who have played and shaped the rules of chess throughout history are all wrong and you know better having fuckall knowledge of the game lol
The game requires you to do a specific thing - put the enemy's king in check - to win. It is illegal for anyone to move themselves into check. Therefore you've made a mistake by making it impossible for you to complete the objective of the game.
You haven't cornered your opponent, you built them a fortress.
i feel like getting put into a situation where any next move is a self check should be considered checkmate. because there are no moves left to make. you cant do anything so you lose.
Winning requires taking an aggressive action, putting the enemy king in check. You shouldn't be rewarded for passive play, otherwise there's no incentive not to trade down and stalemate every time.
If you don't play chess, this is something you cannot understand without playing. Stalemate being a draw is critical for encouraging players to engage strategically and actively instead of passively with their opponents
You clearly don't play chess, because doing this is much easier than actually securing a checkmate. It would break the balance of the game and make it much less enjoyable.
But please, continue to talk about things you have no understanding of. I'm sure that's not gonna cause you to sound retarded.
Bro just stop talking about something you clearly do not understand.
Play chess like a half dozen times and you'll understand that maybe a game that's been played for hundreds and hundreds of years is designed in a particular way, and the 8 seconds you thought about it because of a meme isn't sufficient to have a good opinion here.
I thought the exact same way until I started to play chess myself. If you think of chess as representation of war, yes, this rule makes no sense. But then you could ask why in games like Battlefield or CoD the armies only send a small number of suicidal soldiers into battle and only send a new one after one dies.
On high level play stalemates are used as a threat to limit the opponents options. In this way it works as an expression of skill. Without the stalemate rule chess would mostly work the same as it does now but it would allow a strong winner to mindlessly push their pieces to corner the king. You would surrender a lot of unclear endgames because you know you will get rushed without any counterplay. With the threat of a stalemate the endgame stays relevant even if the board looks dire for the losing side.
I think the problem is the rule is balanced around high level play, where it works great as a threat and rewards skill. A 500 elo will think they're winning, try to position their pieces and suddenly the game stops, says stalemate and it's a draw. Of course that feels like bs.
I would like to think that it will be a draw in such a scenario out of sheer 'honor'; or saying good game or well fought.
Chess is a game set within a rule of conduct, thus, without them you could bend any way- just because. Throw the enemy King away and say my Bishop was a marksman sniper. Without rules, it is not a game anymore, just real life.
I think it's a good rule that a stalemate is a draw. It raises the stakes when you're trying to checkmate your opponent since you can fuck it up and draw if you're not careful.
you think gamers back in the day were "m' immersion is ruined, this game is so woke, why can't i just kill the king if he has nowhere to go" while ignoring the interesting aspect of the stalemate mechanic that gives players more incentive to stick till the end instead of resigning when they don't see a way to win?
But white goes first. Not very woke now, hmh... Unless it's making a point that the whites are oppressing the blacks and those poor blacks have to defend themselves. Okay so it's super woke
If I manage to put the king into a position that he has to move but every square he can move to puts him in checkmate, that's literally winning. Just because the rules say otherwise doesn't mean the rules are right.
Checkmate is a win because you've put your opponent in a position where on your next move you could take their king, and there is no move they can make to avoid that. It's the closest thing you can get to actually taking the king itself.
If they're not in check and they have no legal moves, then you wouldn't be able to take their king on your next move, nevermind the fact you'll never get to that move because they can't take their turn. Their king is safe where it is, and therefore that's absolutely not grounds for you to win.
If they're down to just their king and you have the capacity to checkmate them, then it's on you to do that successfully. If you fuck it up, that's on you as well, no win for you.
My argument included an explanation of the rule that exists, it was not solely an explanation of the rule itself.
More concisely, in chess, you do not win if you aren't checking their king. No threat to the king -> you wouldn't be able to take the king on your next turn -> you don't get the win.
Why do you think you should get the win if your opponent's king is safe?
Not a chess player by any means, but if the rules say you have to move, and anywhere you move will result in you moving into danger, that sounds like you have no choice but to move into danger, is not safe.
Is there an option to pass your turn? If that is the case I agree, I til the other player moves together queen and king to put you in check again.
There's no option to pass your turn, however I don't think it's technically correct to say that the rules say you "have to" move, if we're hinging whether the king is safe or not on that being a requirement.
Sure, for play to continue, then you move on your turn, but it is your turn - as in, you have the option to move, usually under some kind of time constraint.
If we are deferring to the rules though, the discussion ends there, because the rules say that that position - or any position where it's your turn but you have no legal moves available and are not in check, is a stalemate, and therefore a draw.
The king is safe if it is not in check. If it is not in check, then nothing could take it.
The real crux of it though is this - if you are in a position where your opponent has no moves they can make besides moving their king (if this is not the case then a stalemate is impossible as they could simply move another piece), and you have the means to checkmate them yet fail to do so, then you have not met the requirements for winning the game and therefore do not deserve the win. Hence, it's a draw. Your opponent's king is safe, but cannot move to any other square as doing so would put it under threat, they have no other moves they can make, and you cannot move because it is no longer your turn - you had the opportunity to checkmate them before, and were not able to. Almost is not enough.
I'll preface this by saying that imo the stalemate rule makes the game better. Having said that, it could be argued that once you get into this position, it switches to your opponent's turn and his timer should run down to 0 since impossible for him to end his turn.
If you have the ability to completely overwhelm the king but put your pieces in a position where they can’t win, that’s just a skill issue. Unlike real life, chess is turn-based, so it’s completely fair if you use your turn to set up the kill but prevent the opponent from using their turn so you can actually go for the kill next turn.
It makes perfect sense if you know just two other rules:
1) A win only occurs by getting a checkmate. Which is a check the king can't escape from
2) A king cannot move to a position where they would be checked
King can't move, but you haven't got a check. No winners, no legal moves left, stalemate
Yeah it's kind of a feature of the game, as annoying as it can be if you end up losing your win because of it. The whole point is that it keeps the game in the balance until the very end. Otherwise once one player has an insurmountable advantage the tension of the game would be all but over, whereas this rule allows a skilled player to turn what would have been a certain loss into a tie, and also forces the winning player to still be very careful with their moves until they've actually won. Many a good player has fumbled a win by placing their pieces wrongly in the endgame.
yea, its annoying when it happens to you, but realistically, its not a big deal for any semi-skilled player who is paying attention.
All it does is add a lot of depth to a lot of positions. There are some really funny lines that work only because of this rule. I think that the annoyance for newer players is not enough of a reason to complete get rid of it.
The endgame is where I thrive playing against my friends, they tend to rip me apart in the midgame but so long as I've got a knight left a stalemate is the least I'd expect
White has no legal moves remaining, since you are not allowed to put yourself in check, and you are also not allowed to skip a turn. This means the game is forcibly ended as a stalemate.
We can make a rule that the king can skip around the rook to castle, "but only under these very specific circumstances".
We can make a rule that pawns can move two spaces instead of one, "but only under these very specific circumstances".
We can make a rule that the pawn can actually be attacked from behind, "but only under these very specific circumstances".
But we cant make a rule that the king just doesnt move at all (essentially a turn is skipped) if there is no legal move?
If you've clearly been bested to the point where you are rendered unable to move, then its ridiculous to argue that you played on an even level. You won on a technicality.
I feel that part of the strategy is both not getting behind in the first place, and also overcoming deficits.
Playing for a draw still reads like "trying to catch a technicality when you have haven't actually won".
I hear a lot of "if you accidently stalemate, then you dont deserve to win", but i ask "if you've been beaten so badly that youre movement is completely binded, then do you deserve to tie?"
Lastly. We could implement all kinds of silly technicalities in games. We could toss a hoop into the outfield of baseball and if you step in the circle your entire team loses. We could say if everyone on a basketball team faces the same direction they all lose, and teams could hoot and holler to make the entire opposing team face the same way if they are going to lose. These rules are silly, but we could argue that they make the game more interesting... but I also dont think they necessarily emphasize the skill of the game, rather they apply a gimmick to it. It is something that makes more sense in a "house rules" type scenario, rather than individuals the core ruleset.
The rule gives the game more depth https://youtu.be/XjRcm4ftxrU?t=19m30s
In other scenarios where you stalemate a winning position (e.g. in the post) imo it's a punishment for skill issue of being unable to convert a winning position/attempting to bm AND a reward for a good psychology play (see Eric Rosen stalemate traps)
I just plain dont agree. Why would stalemate traps give the game more depth but trying to hit a ball towards a ring so that an outfielder accidently steps inside the hoop no also give baseball more depth?
You can say "it gives it more depth" about any rule no matter how silly. The question should not be about depth, but about core gameplay. A hoop in the middle of the outfield doesnt really compliment the skills we would most associate with baseball. A rule about facing the same direction doesnt compliment the skills we most associate with basketball. Yet despite not complimenting the skills, we could totally just say that these add depth to the games.
Its the same with chess. Stalemating a clearly winning position doesnt compliment the skills of the game. Its a punishment based on a technicality, no different than the hoop in the outfield or "no facing the same direction" in basketball. A cheap way to win or tie.
For how stalemate traps add depth to the game I gave a pretty clear example as shown in the video, the vast majority would think the sequence as brilliant.
I don't play baseball nor basketball so I don't understand the analogy, but as for the "downsides" of stalemate, avoiding a stalemating is a skill you need to learn, which is most obvious by the fact that you need to learn checkmating patterns (mate with rook, two bishops etc) and even just converting a winning position (king and pawn v king), otherwise you could claim that you win a position such as knight and bishop without actually knowing how to checkmate with knight and bishop.
Given that you already know about stalemates while playing the game, a stalemate should be treated as a blunder, if you accidentally blunder normally in a clearly winning position, that would also net you a draw/loss.
You've really ignored the point of my comment, so ill be more brief this time. My point is that you can add rules to any game that result in a loss or a draw. You could also call any newly added rule to a game as "giving the game more depth".
Im not ignoring your video, I said that I dont agree with the premise because it doesnt contend with my point which is that this isnt a unique thing about chess and is instead an arbitrary point that you could make about any game.
Let's keep it to chess then, how about we add these rules to give chess "more depth":
If you move a pawn on move 5, you lose.
If you move a knight on move 10, you lose.
If you move a bishop on move 15, you lose.
If you move a rook on move 20, you lose.
If you move a queen on move 25, you lose.
If you move a King in move 30, you lose.
Good players could immediately start forming strategies to take advantage of these rules. It would start with openings where not being able to move a pawn on move 5 is a disadvantage. Then try and force endgames where a player cant move a queen or king.
The question should not be "does this add more depth", it should be "does this compliment the skills and core play of the game". I genuinely see no difference between the stalemate rule and the rules ive proposed. But I would be willing to bet that way less people would be so passionate about imposing my proposed rules as they would about maintaining the stalemate rule. The difference, I contend is simply tradition.
Firstly I would clarify that this arises as a natural result from other rules: 1. You may not move your king into check. 2.You have to make a move on your turn.
I'm not too sure what you would consider core play and skill of the game but for me it would be calculating moves and pattern recognition, and imo stalemate does compliment those two by keeping up tension and forcing you to still calculate even in endgame. The most common example would be learning how to keep opposition in a king and pawn v king endgame but there are many more.
Ignoring the fact that stalemate is a natural result of chess rules and a big reason why it is accepted, stalemate as a rule also makes a significant amount of endgame positions much more interesting to calculate and worth playing, as compared to your rules, which I don't think will significantly impact anything other than opening prep.
It's only a win for black if white is currently in check at the moment where they have no legal moves left on their turn. In this situation white is actually not in check, but any move they make will put them in check, hence they cannot make any of them. Technically a draw, but it's obvious who will be happier with this outcome.
So you’re saying that black would have to put white into check with his last move not just place his pieces into a position where white has no choice but to put himself into check?
Nah fam, think of it like this- if there's no legal moves to make, it's a draw regardless of who is ahead.
This forces you to have to play in a way that carries some kind of risk. Otherwise White could win nearly every game of chess in just four moves. It'd force Black to have to do only a few specific openings.
So if it's a draw for both players, you now can force the player that's ahead to take trades they wouldn't want otherwise you can create the draw and take the win from them. This is the only way there's any kind of "comeback" mechanic in the game.
You only win by having a direct attack on the king.
Ya it's only a checkmate if you are already in check and then have no legal moves left. This situation is different as white is not currently in check.
But that is the point. If you’re black, you’re supposed to place your pieces in such a way that on whites next turn he has no moves he can make that will not put himself directly onto a square where he can be killed. That’s how black gets checkmate. How is this different from that?
It's only checkmate if you are put in check first. In this case white is not in check yet, but every single possible move would put them in check, making every move illegal.
My gripe with this that if you have no legal moves remaining it should end in your loss,not a stalemate.
If youre such a garbage player to get trapped in a no move situation, your opponent outplayed you. The loser doesn't get to take his ball and go home. Take the L like a gentleman.
For good chess players there’s complicated traps where the losing player can force a stalemate sequence, if you’re winning and stalemate the game you have a skill issue
Is queen to E2 not a checkmate? White king can't move to d1, d2, f1, or f2 without being in check, and if white takes the queen at e2 they'll still be in check from the king at e3.
The game is white to move (at least assumed), which if it is, white cannot make a move but is not check. In this case it’s a stalemate (draw, tie) because white has to make a move before black can, but they have no legal moves. I assume this rule came about because in classical chess there’s no time limit, meaning white can just sit there permanently, meaning the game never ends.
Because white has to be in check and not have any legal moves, no one really knows why it’s like that but it is. I guess for chess you win by checkmate, but you can’t do it without check
Yeah, I get that. But it sounds very dumb to me that a valid strategy to avoid a loss is to corner yourself making sure it's your turn when no more legal moves are left.
I’m just saying, if you’re up a queen and all I have is a king and you fail to mate me, you don’t deserve the win, you can literally check with every move
Not being able to move into check seems like a rule to help beginners not blunder their king and lose instantly. I dont understand why it still exists at higher levels of play.
I used to think it was stupid too until I realize chess is supposed to be a war strategy game. Neither side wins if you can't conclusively end the conflict when you have the opportunity to.
This doesn't even make sense in this scenario. The stalemate is due to white not having any moves. It would be akin to having a single army unit surrounded by enemies and then saying its a draw because you cant move your army anywhere. Which is completely dumb considering the black army would just kill them in this fictional scenario.
True but in this scenario, the white team is out of supplies and at low moral (everyone else is captured or dead). Also they are boxed in, their only options if this was a true war would be to die in a last stand, or to surrender, both of which are "wins" for black.
Honestly stalemate is a good feature of chess. It mostly comes up on pawn endgames where one side has a pawn advantage but can't force promotion because the opposing king can get in front of the pawn. It's good that a single pawn advantage doesn't mean automatic victory
absolutely DESTROY my opponent with my strategic tradeoff which render my opponent powerless against me
basicaly took control of the whole board
only moves he can do is to flee around the board with his king like a little rat
doesn't take too long for me to have him cornered.
with this next move it will be ove-
STALEMATE! screams my opponent while giggling out of sheer excitement
confusion.mp3
"okay...? That means you lost since you can't mov-"
"NO NO NO! This is match is nullified! You didn't win"
"Dude if I have you surrounded by my army and no matter where you go it's a death sentence that's a game over for you. "
opponent snort his own bogger a couple of times before fumbling around with his phone to open reddit as he lack any sort of critical thinking on his own.
See it says right here: "I used to think it was stupid too until I realize chess is supposed to be a war strategy game. Neither side wins if you can't conclusively end the conflict when you have the opportunity to."
comment left by "blackedwife42069"
the fuck you mean "can't conclusively end the conflict" I graped all your women, burn to crisp the land and castrated every man before sending them to die as my mining slave but because your king is hiding in a bunker underground that means I didn't win?
"exactly."
mfw
realise i'm not a kid from india and can do something else for fun
fantastic writing, i was enthralled from start to finish. the most superior quality of this piece is the fact that it is true to life; indeed i am fully capable of selecting another passtime in which i may capture more moments of unbridled joy, than if i were to continue engaging in chess as a broad category of game, including ranked matches, strategy guide readings and ever more tedious chores.
how marvelous it is to partake in one's own freewill and choose something better to play than chess!
If you manage to stalemate with a king queen combo against a boardwalking King you deserve for it to be treated like an L instead of a stalemate, how tf you fail that bad? You're in an undefeatable position and your opponent's in an unwinnable one and your mouth breathing ass managed to fuck that up?? Take the L and walk away man, this is like a toddler missing a tick tock toe and complaining the game is broken.
There are positions possible in which white has no remaining pieces but manages to trap black (black would have to be severely mentally deficient for this to happen).
The only reasonable way to resolve this is to say the game is a draw, since chess does not actually care how many points of material you have remaining. Therefore the opposite is true, and if white is trapped by black's remaining pieces, the game must be a draw.
I'm sure a smarter person than me can explain why that's a rule but I always thought it was a stupid one, if you've made it so your opponent is out of options surely that should be a win for you?
Problem is that what to do when you have no move and not in check. This is a simple position but there may be a positions not as simple as this one which more pieces on board and you still have no move.
Also a lot of the drawn endgames became win without stalemates.
Lastly it is really fun to get stalemate when you are losing
The practical reason for this rule is that it gives an obviously beaten player a reason not to surrender. If they play smart they still stand a chance of stalemate, sometimes via this method.
ProdigyRed007@reddit
Why is this a draw and not a checkmate
SpottedWobbegong@reddit
You don't lose, a stalemate is a tie
Disastrous-Tank-6197@reddit
If you ain't first, you're last.
TrueGootsBerzook@reddit
If you're not cheating, you're not trying
stereoSD@reddit
If it's not delivery, it's Digiorno
Nspired2@reddit
Hotel? Trivago
Chrrodon@reddit
For everything else, there's mastercard
Slip_Snake@reddit
15 minutes can save you 15% or more on car insurance
misterpickles69@reddit
Calgon, take me away!
TinySchwartz@reddit
Maybe it's Maybelline
orgalixon@reddit
Get in the zone, AutoZone
HakosbaelZhusband@reddit
Every kiss begins with Kay
Thendrail@reddit
Goddamnpassword@reddit
Oh hell, Son, I was high that day. That doesn't make any sense at all, you can be second, third, fourth... hell you can even be fifth.
Rambozo77@reddit
The last part of that is my favorite line in the movie. As if it just occurred to him that fifth place exists. And Gary Cole’s delivery is perfect.
LasyKuuga@reddit
If you’re not the winner you’re just another ranked loser
ReturnRadio@reddit
ElBusAlv@reddit
How is that a stalemate though, that doesn't make sense
PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit
Nobody who has ever had this type of stalemate feels like they tied.
Axe-actly@reddit
If you can't mate with Q+K vs. K you don't deserve a win anyway.
I love the stalemate rule it forces the winning side to actually try instead of doing random shit until the opponent gets stuck.
Neomataza@reddit
One one hand, you're right, on the other, it's more like knowing a trick and less like a skill comparison. Push the king to the edge with your own king. Then bring in the queen. Very basic, like riding a bike.
ToumaKazusa1@reddit
For this specific stalemate, but there are more complex versions
MrMangobrick@reddit
To be fair, if you get this type of stalemate you deserve to lose, it's very easy to avoid this
RagingStallion@reddit
Stalemate as black is better than a simple tie since white has first mover advantage.
SpottedWobbegong@reddit
On the other hand, if you are losing and manage to stalemate trap your opponent it feels like winning, so overall it's balanced I'd say
earlobe7@reddit
I do think that rule makes the game better in that it adds the possibility to play for a stalemate when you’re down.
But, like, thematically? c’mon…they have no ways to move OTHER than that which puts them in check. They should lose. And if they truly don’t have any moves? Skip the turn!
zw1ck@reddit
I like to think that in the early days this wasn't a rule. Some king is taught chess and loves it, showing everyone this fascinating new game. Then one day he loses to his jester and comes up with stalemate on the fly. "Er uh well, haha you see, this is a tie!" "A tie, my liege? But I have you defenseless and surrounded." "I SAID ITS A TIE!" "Yes of course, your majesty. Well played."
Username928351@reddit
Stalemate equalling tie is a very recent rule addition if we take the entire history of chess into account. It was only standardized in the 19th century. There's no inherent reason why it should always equal tie, it was just decided at some point.
F-Lambda@reddit
ah, so it should be thrown out, got it
Real-Arachnid8671@reddit
It feels like a loss.
Blamore@reddit
still doesnt make sense. the person who forces the stalemate clearly shpuld win
banevader102938@reddit
Tbh at this point its a lose
seen_some_shit_@reddit
With you having an obvious advantage and means to win but messing it up and allowing your opponent to not lose, it feels like a loss.
SeaAlgea@reddit
Tying is losing.
Esoteric_Librarian@reddit
Correct me if I’m wrong, and I fully admit I could be wrong, cause I’m dumb.
I mean, you knew that though, yeah? Because I did put out that press release
But I’m just wondering, how is this a stalemate?
Let’s assume it’s white’s turn to move. The king can only move one space and any movement it makes is a checkmate.
So, what if it’s black’s turn? Well, I would say move the Black Queen in front of the Black King…. And it’s checkmate. Because even if the White King takes the queen, the very next move, the black king takes white king. If the white king DOESNT take the Black Queen and tries to move away, the Black Queen can take the white king wherever it moves.
So, what am I missing here?
mattstev999@reddit
You're not allowed to move your king into check, it's against the rules. So in this position, white simply cannot play a move. There is nothing they are allowed to do...so the game ends in a stalemate, because black doesn't have them in check. No check, no checkmate. If it's black to move then it's mate in 1
Esoteric_Librarian@reddit
That’s really dumb.
I mean I get it, but it’s dumb
Tommy2255@reddit
Also while we're at it, castling and en passante are also shit rules. The entire point of chess, the reason why it's a famous game that continues to be played after centuries, is because of the emergent complexity from a simple ruleset. You have a very simple way that each piece can move, and you put those simple rules together and it creates a game that is challenging at any level of play from Kindergarteners to chess grandmasters. The idea that you have these magic special cases where the normal rules don't apply and you can do some other shit instead goes against the entire point of the game even existing.
mattstev999@reddit
En passant was added at roughly the same time as the double pawn move because it simply wasn't fair. Double pawn move sped up the opening, but removed the opportunity to capture an advancing pawn, so you're allowed to anyways. Does nothing but make the several hour long game get past the opening a few moves faster.
Castling is kinda weird though idk where that comes from
Tommy2255@reddit
Speeding up the opening ladder by a few moves makes sense when you have a game of standard openings and repeated common plays. We all know how this is going to go, so we can just skip over it. I understand why grandmaster chess players would want that. But if you're looking at the board and just trying to plan ahead, and actually having to think about planning because you haven't memorized by rote all the openings, I think you can understand why that rule would seem arbitrary and absurd to a new player.
For most of the history of the game, chess was a board game you could pull out and just play, and you couldn't have standardized openings, because everyone played with a different ruleset, and that would make the game behave differently, which meant that you always had to think about it. Once chess was standardized, it was standardized in such a way as to accommodate tournament play, and that can be to the detriment of just playing it as a game.
People imagine chess skill as essentially a direct proxy for overall intelligence, perhaps moreso than any other game. But in reality, I think that modern chess has much less intellectual value than it once did. Because the standardization of the game has allowed more of the game to be dominated by rote memorization of specific plays, and the very niche rules that only make sense in the context of very specific conditions created by the very specific rules in use are just a symptom of that.
If it were up to me, chess sets would come with an additional set of fairy pieces in addition to the standard set, and in tournaments, you would have a randomized selection process that would determine what pieces you start with (probably the same for both sides; it would be interesting to play asymmetric games but would require a lot of additional restrictions to keep a balance of equal value pieces). Under those conditions, you would have to actually play the game, and not just work down a ladder of standardized responses, and that would make it unnecessary to introduce rules like en passante and the double pawn move to speed up the game, because you wouldn't just be trying to skip over the boring part, you would be making real and meaningful decisions the whole time.
mattstev999@reddit
I think Chess960 is an amazing example of something similar to what you described, where opening theory and memorization are thrown out in favour of planning and calculation. However, even in fairy chess or chess960 the double pawn move has the same effect. What originally would've been two moves is now one, and the other player gets a chance to respond. I guess it mostly comes down to "how hard is it for a new player to learn these things." Personally, I think things like castling and en passant aren't that complicated, but I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who's BEEN playing chess. I don't remember what it's like to be learning. It would also likely depend on who's teaching the new player, and how they go about teaching the more niche rules. If I had manually castled and then the more experienced player did the special move, I'd feel slighted for sure. The pieces move in a really simple way, as you said, so I do wonder how much additional complexity is added teaching special moves in addition to them
vjmdhzgr@reddit
You lose at chess when the king is taken from the board. All that stuff about check, and not being able to move your king into check is just bullshit. It's a bunch of extra guidelines. The game can end when the king is without a doubt going to be taken instead of directly when it is.
Either definition means the trapped king loses here. No chess player has ever come up with a logical defense of stalemates.
mattstev999@reddit
Yeah, extra guidelines as in the rules of the game. The king isn't going to be taken because it'll never be black's turn because white can't play. Sometimes "it's how the game works" is the only defense a rule needs, just don't fuck up and it won't matter
SamMarduk@reddit
I literally thought this was the definition of “checkmate”
mattstev999@reddit
There's no check, so no checkmate
LukeJaywalker0@reddit
This is a stalemate and a draw though.
little-Drop1441@reddit
It's bullshit, how's cornering your opponent not a win?
Blamore@reddit
it is futile to argue with these people. they will defend any existing rule of any game, no matter how ludicrous
Sinfere@reddit
It's kinda audacious to think that the literally millions of people who have played and shaped the rules of chess throughout history are all wrong and you know better having fuckall knowledge of the game lol
Blamore@reddit
they all had a brainfart
rkiive@reddit
Yea every argument I’ve seen boils down to “it’s not stupid becsuse this is what the rule says”
ITAW-Techie@reddit
Sinfere@reddit
The game requires you to do a specific thing - put the enemy's king in check - to win. It is illegal for anyone to move themselves into check. Therefore you've made a mistake by making it impossible for you to complete the objective of the game.
You haven't cornered your opponent, you built them a fortress.
3-to-20-chars@reddit
i feel like getting put into a situation where any next move is a self check should be considered checkmate. because there are no moves left to make. you cant do anything so you lose.
Few-Frosting-4213@reddit
But that also goes against the rule that a king can't put itself into a check, which is required for the functioning of the piece.
Sinfere@reddit
Winning requires taking an aggressive action, putting the enemy king in check. You shouldn't be rewarded for passive play, otherwise there's no incentive not to trade down and stalemate every time.
If you don't play chess, this is something you cannot understand without playing. Stalemate being a draw is critical for encouraging players to engage strategically and actively instead of passively with their opponents
3-to-20-chars@reddit
i think you should be rewarded with a win for successfully denying your opponent any moves at all.
Sinfere@reddit
You clearly don't play chess, because doing this is much easier than actually securing a checkmate. It would break the balance of the game and make it much less enjoyable.
But please, continue to talk about things you have no understanding of. I'm sure that's not gonna cause you to sound retarded.
F-Lambda@reddit
but if they have no legal moves, then they're forced to run out the time clock, and they should lose for flagging
Sinfere@reddit
Bro just stop talking about something you clearly do not understand.
Play chess like a half dozen times and you'll understand that maybe a game that's been played for hundreds and hundreds of years is designed in a particular way, and the 8 seconds you thought about it because of a meme isn't sufficient to have a good opinion here.
CrispyJelly@reddit
I thought the exact same way until I started to play chess myself. If you think of chess as representation of war, yes, this rule makes no sense. But then you could ask why in games like Battlefield or CoD the armies only send a small number of suicidal soldiers into battle and only send a new one after one dies.
On high level play stalemates are used as a threat to limit the opponents options. In this way it works as an expression of skill. Without the stalemate rule chess would mostly work the same as it does now but it would allow a strong winner to mindlessly push their pieces to corner the king. You would surrender a lot of unclear endgames because you know you will get rushed without any counterplay. With the threat of a stalemate the endgame stays relevant even if the board looks dire for the losing side.
I think the problem is the rule is balanced around high level play, where it works great as a threat and rewards skill. A 500 elo will think they're winning, try to position their pieces and suddenly the game stops, says stalemate and it's a draw. Of course that feels like bs.
LukeJaywalker0@reddit
Cuz it allows the losing player to force a stalemate and the winning player shouldn't make these horrible last minute moves. He could've won here too.
Kronomancer1192@reddit
Imagine two opposing medieval armies fought and all that was left by the end was the queen of one army and the queen and king of the other.
Now obviously we're already way outside believable scenarios here because that would never happen.
But also... dont just walk away being like, "oh, i guess it's a draw. We'll see you week"
Go fucking stab that bitch.
pekkaAlone@reddit
I would like to think that it will be a draw in such a scenario out of sheer 'honor'; or saying good game or well fought.
Chess is a game set within a rule of conduct, thus, without them you could bend any way- just because. Throw the enemy King away and say my Bishop was a marksman sniper. Without rules, it is not a game anymore, just real life.
OfficialHelpK@reddit
I think it's a good rule that a stalemate is a draw. It raises the stakes when you're trying to checkmate your opponent since you can fuck it up and draw if you're not careful.
Shoddy-Warning4838@reddit
you think gamers back in the day were "m' immersion is ruined, this game is so woke, why can't i just kill the king if he has nowhere to go" while ignoring the interesting aspect of the stalemate mechanic that gives players more incentive to stick till the end instead of resigning when they don't see a way to win?
LukeJaywalker0@reddit
Of course the queen is more powerful than the king and every pawn is able to transition into one. Woke DEI chess smh.
AssAdmiral_@reddit
But white goes first. Not very woke now, hmh... Unless it's making a point that the whites are oppressing the blacks and those poor blacks have to defend themselves. Okay so it's super woke
awolkriblo@reddit
Also the queen has crazy witch powers and is more powerful than the king.
TaserDonut@reddit
A draw by insufficient material is gay sex because it's either only the kings left or there's a single knight or single bishop left
A draw by no valid moves is BDSM because the king can't move
HassanBadAss@reddit
imagine a medieval warfare when the queen jumps straigth to battle moves the whole battlefield in a blink an slay a Chivalier whit one blow
LukeJaywalker0@reddit
This is when you slam your fist through the chess board and scream at your competitor
KNGJN@reddit
Yeah I fuckin hate this shit lmaooo
Romeo9594@reddit
In a game based on strategy you should plan out so this doesn't happen and you can win. If you're not good enough to win, you shouldn't
Ghostie_24@reddit
If I manage to put the king into a position that he has to move but every square he can move to puts him in checkmate, that's literally winning. Just because the rules say otherwise doesn't mean the rules are right.
luke_425@reddit
Not really.
Checkmate is a win because you've put your opponent in a position where on your next move you could take their king, and there is no move they can make to avoid that. It's the closest thing you can get to actually taking the king itself.
If they're not in check and they have no legal moves, then you wouldn't be able to take their king on your next move, nevermind the fact you'll never get to that move because they can't take their turn. Their king is safe where it is, and therefore that's absolutely not grounds for you to win.
If they're down to just their king and you have the capacity to checkmate them, then it's on you to do that successfully. If you fuck it up, that's on you as well, no win for you.
rkiive@reddit
If your argument against why a certain rule is stupid is just explaining that the rule exists, it’s not a good argument.
We know what the rule is. We’re disagreeing with it.
luke_425@reddit
My argument included an explanation of the rule that exists, it was not solely an explanation of the rule itself.
More concisely, in chess, you do not win if you aren't checking their king. No threat to the king -> you wouldn't be able to take the king on your next turn -> you don't get the win.
Why do you think you should get the win if your opponent's king is safe?
commentsandopinions@reddit
Not a chess player by any means, but if the rules say you have to move, and anywhere you move will result in you moving into danger, that sounds like you have no choice but to move into danger, is not safe.
Is there an option to pass your turn? If that is the case I agree, I til the other player moves together queen and king to put you in check again.
luke_425@reddit
There's no option to pass your turn, however I don't think it's technically correct to say that the rules say you "have to" move, if we're hinging whether the king is safe or not on that being a requirement.
Sure, for play to continue, then you move on your turn, but it is your turn - as in, you have the option to move, usually under some kind of time constraint.
If we are deferring to the rules though, the discussion ends there, because the rules say that that position - or any position where it's your turn but you have no legal moves available and are not in check, is a stalemate, and therefore a draw.
The king is safe if it is not in check. If it is not in check, then nothing could take it.
The real crux of it though is this - if you are in a position where your opponent has no moves they can make besides moving their king (if this is not the case then a stalemate is impossible as they could simply move another piece), and you have the means to checkmate them yet fail to do so, then you have not met the requirements for winning the game and therefore do not deserve the win. Hence, it's a draw. Your opponent's king is safe, but cannot move to any other square as doing so would put it under threat, they have no other moves they can make, and you cannot move because it is no longer your turn - you had the opportunity to checkmate them before, and were not able to. Almost is not enough.
Raulr100@reddit
I'll preface this by saying that imo the stalemate rule makes the game better. Having said that, it could be argued that once you get into this position, it switches to your opponent's turn and his timer should run down to 0 since impossible for him to end his turn.
Blamore@reddit
people who cannot accept this straightforward logic are all NPCs. it is futile to argue with them...
JoeDaBruh@reddit
If you have the ability to completely overwhelm the king but put your pieces in a position where they can’t win, that’s just a skill issue. Unlike real life, chess is turn-based, so it’s completely fair if you use your turn to set up the kill but prevent the opponent from using their turn so you can actually go for the kill next turn.
Anvex1@reddit
Hey, someone who gets it!
Blamore@reddit
the argument is not that stalemates are unavoidable, the argument is that the rule makes no sense.
Romeo9594@reddit
It makes perfect sense if you know just two other rules:
1) A win only occurs by getting a checkmate. Which is a check the king can't escape from
2) A king cannot move to a position where they would be checked
King can't move, but you haven't got a check. No winners, no legal moves left, stalemate
F-Lambda@reddit
you forgot something: the time clock
King can't move, clock runs out. change turns with no move.
Romeo9594@reddit
So then don't suck faster
minty-moose@reddit
it makes sense bevause then you can't fumble your way into a win lmao
Dsmxyz@reddit
just because its a feature doesn't mean its well designed
space_guy95@reddit
Yeah it's kind of a feature of the game, as annoying as it can be if you end up losing your win because of it. The whole point is that it keeps the game in the balance until the very end. Otherwise once one player has an insurmountable advantage the tension of the game would be all but over, whereas this rule allows a skilled player to turn what would have been a certain loss into a tie, and also forces the winning player to still be very careful with their moves until they've actually won. Many a good player has fumbled a win by placing their pieces wrongly in the endgame.
alexathegibrakiller@reddit
yea, its annoying when it happens to you, but realistically, its not a big deal for any semi-skilled player who is paying attention.
All it does is add a lot of depth to a lot of positions. There are some really funny lines that work only because of this rule. I think that the annoyance for newer players is not enough of a reason to complete get rid of it.
Nagatox@reddit
The endgame is where I thrive playing against my friends, they tend to rip me apart in the midgame but so long as I've got a knight left a stalemate is the least I'd expect
southwest_barfight@reddit
Might be worthing getting good
SpaceBug176@reddit
Also since it's an old game that's been around for years, you just know everyone got their own rule for this situation.
billylolol@reddit
It looks like white loses here. Am I stupid?
PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit
White has no legal moves remaining, since you are not allowed to put yourself in check, and you are also not allowed to skip a turn. This means the game is forcibly ended as a stalemate.
StandardN02b@reddit
Thanks, I always thought that since youcouldn't make any legal moves without losing it means that you lost.
bro0t@reddit
No, part of “checkmate” is the “check” part, the king has to be attacked with no way to escape, in this case, the king isnt attacked
Reptile_Cloacalingus@reddit
So let me get this straight.
We can make a rule that the king can skip around the rook to castle, "but only under these very specific circumstances".
We can make a rule that pawns can move two spaces instead of one, "but only under these very specific circumstances".
We can make a rule that the pawn can actually be attacked from behind, "but only under these very specific circumstances".
But we cant make a rule that the king just doesnt move at all (essentially a turn is skipped) if there is no legal move?
If you've clearly been bested to the point where you are rendered unable to move, then its ridiculous to argue that you played on an even level. You won on a technicality.
bro0t@reddit
Playing for a draw on that technicality is part of the strategy if youre behind.
I feel it makes the game more interesting.
Reptile_Cloacalingus@reddit
I feel that part of the strategy is both not getting behind in the first place, and also overcoming deficits.
Playing for a draw still reads like "trying to catch a technicality when you have haven't actually won".
I hear a lot of "if you accidently stalemate, then you dont deserve to win", but i ask "if you've been beaten so badly that youre movement is completely binded, then do you deserve to tie?"
Lastly. We could implement all kinds of silly technicalities in games. We could toss a hoop into the outfield of baseball and if you step in the circle your entire team loses. We could say if everyone on a basketball team faces the same direction they all lose, and teams could hoot and holler to make the entire opposing team face the same way if they are going to lose. These rules are silly, but we could argue that they make the game more interesting... but I also dont think they necessarily emphasize the skill of the game, rather they apply a gimmick to it. It is something that makes more sense in a "house rules" type scenario, rather than individuals the core ruleset.
ushileon@reddit
The rule gives the game more depth https://youtu.be/XjRcm4ftxrU?t=19m30s
In other scenarios where you stalemate a winning position (e.g. in the post) imo it's a punishment for skill issue of being unable to convert a winning position/attempting to bm AND a reward for a good psychology play (see Eric Rosen stalemate traps)
Reptile_Cloacalingus@reddit
I just plain dont agree. Why would stalemate traps give the game more depth but trying to hit a ball towards a ring so that an outfielder accidently steps inside the hoop no also give baseball more depth?
You can say "it gives it more depth" about any rule no matter how silly. The question should not be about depth, but about core gameplay. A hoop in the middle of the outfield doesnt really compliment the skills we would most associate with baseball. A rule about facing the same direction doesnt compliment the skills we most associate with basketball. Yet despite not complimenting the skills, we could totally just say that these add depth to the games.
Its the same with chess. Stalemating a clearly winning position doesnt compliment the skills of the game. Its a punishment based on a technicality, no different than the hoop in the outfield or "no facing the same direction" in basketball. A cheap way to win or tie.
ushileon@reddit
For how stalemate traps add depth to the game I gave a pretty clear example as shown in the video, the vast majority would think the sequence as brilliant.
I don't play baseball nor basketball so I don't understand the analogy, but as for the "downsides" of stalemate, avoiding a stalemating is a skill you need to learn, which is most obvious by the fact that you need to learn checkmating patterns (mate with rook, two bishops etc) and even just converting a winning position (king and pawn v king), otherwise you could claim that you win a position such as knight and bishop without actually knowing how to checkmate with knight and bishop.
Given that you already know about stalemates while playing the game, a stalemate should be treated as a blunder, if you accidentally blunder normally in a clearly winning position, that would also net you a draw/loss.
Reptile_Cloacalingus@reddit
You've really ignored the point of my comment, so ill be more brief this time. My point is that you can add rules to any game that result in a loss or a draw. You could also call any newly added rule to a game as "giving the game more depth".
Im not ignoring your video, I said that I dont agree with the premise because it doesnt contend with my point which is that this isnt a unique thing about chess and is instead an arbitrary point that you could make about any game.
Let's keep it to chess then, how about we add these rules to give chess "more depth": If you move a pawn on move 5, you lose. If you move a knight on move 10, you lose. If you move a bishop on move 15, you lose. If you move a rook on move 20, you lose. If you move a queen on move 25, you lose. If you move a King in move 30, you lose.
Good players could immediately start forming strategies to take advantage of these rules. It would start with openings where not being able to move a pawn on move 5 is a disadvantage. Then try and force endgames where a player cant move a queen or king.
The question should not be "does this add more depth", it should be "does this compliment the skills and core play of the game". I genuinely see no difference between the stalemate rule and the rules ive proposed. But I would be willing to bet that way less people would be so passionate about imposing my proposed rules as they would about maintaining the stalemate rule. The difference, I contend is simply tradition.
ushileon@reddit
Firstly I would clarify that this arises as a natural result from other rules: 1. You may not move your king into check. 2.You have to make a move on your turn.
I'm not too sure what you would consider core play and skill of the game but for me it would be calculating moves and pattern recognition, and imo stalemate does compliment those two by keeping up tension and forcing you to still calculate even in endgame. The most common example would be learning how to keep opposition in a king and pawn v king endgame but there are many more.
Ignoring the fact that stalemate is a natural result of chess rules and a big reason why it is accepted, stalemate as a rule also makes a significant amount of endgame positions much more interesting to calculate and worth playing, as compared to your rules, which I don't think will significantly impact anything other than opening prep.
RipDove@reddit
Nah, it's a feature, not a bug. The point is that the other person has to create an attack on the king directly to win.
StandardN02b@reddit
If you starve someone to death in a siege, you win.
Munnin41@reddit
It's more like capturing the king as a hostage (whereas checkmate would be killing him)
koknesis@reddit
Yup, I always thought thats the goal of the game
PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit
It's only a win for black if white is currently in check at the moment where they have no legal moves left on their turn. In this situation white is actually not in check, but any move they make will put them in check, hence they cannot make any of them. Technically a draw, but it's obvious who will be happier with this outcome.
AugustEpilogue@reddit
So you’re saying that black would have to put white into check with his last move not just place his pieces into a position where white has no choice but to put himself into check?
PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit
Yep.
Tommy2255@reddit
Yeah, that's what anyone on Earth would think, and that's why it's a shit rule. That's the point of the post.
RipDove@reddit
Nah fam, think of it like this- if there's no legal moves to make, it's a draw regardless of who is ahead.
This forces you to have to play in a way that carries some kind of risk. Otherwise White could win nearly every game of chess in just four moves. It'd force Black to have to do only a few specific openings.
So if it's a draw for both players, you now can force the player that's ahead to take trades they wouldn't want otherwise you can create the draw and take the win from them. This is the only way there's any kind of "comeback" mechanic in the game.
You only win by having a direct attack on the king.
PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit
Ya it's only a checkmate if you are already in check and then have no legal moves left. This situation is different as white is not currently in check.
F-Lambda@reddit
this ruling is stupid because time clocks exist. if you have no legal move, then you should be forced to run out the clock and lose for flagging.
AugustEpilogue@reddit
But that is the point. If you’re black, you’re supposed to place your pieces in such a way that on whites next turn he has no moves he can make that will not put himself directly onto a square where he can be killed. That’s how black gets checkmate. How is this different from that?
DreamlyXenophobic@reddit
Isnt that just a checkmate though?
PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit
It's only checkmate if you are put in check first. In this case white is not in check yet, but every single possible move would put them in check, making every move illegal.
outland_king@reddit
My gripe with this that if you have no legal moves remaining it should end in your loss,not a stalemate.
If youre such a garbage player to get trapped in a no move situation, your opponent outplayed you. The loser doesn't get to take his ball and go home. Take the L like a gentleman.
giantspacefreighter@reddit
For good chess players there’s complicated traps where the losing player can force a stalemate sequence, if you’re winning and stalemate the game you have a skill issue
Odd_Plankton_925@reddit
If you're in check and can't make any moves, they win. If you arent in check and cant make any legal moves, its stalemate
Shoddy-Warning4838@reddit
It's implied it's white's turn to move, if it was black's it would be e2 checkmate.
salvation-damnation@reddit
This is a stalemate because white king doesn't have any legal moves but isn't threatened by any black piece. The game ends in a draw.
Severe-Pangolin-376@reddit
This is a stalemate because white cannot make a legal move but is not currently in check.
Nervous_Ad_8441@reddit
Skill issue
LoneSaiyan@reddit
I see Anon almost won his first chess match
dGlitch@reddit
They need to patch this bug. Unplayable
thr33beggars@reddit
They said they’d fix it for Chess 2 but that’s been in development hell for ages
Drafo7@reddit
There legit is a Chess 2 though: https://www.chess2online.com/rulebook.pdf
Frosty-Comfort6699@reddit
how come trump already plays chess 5 then?
Reading_username@reddit
I thought Chess 4 was the 4-d variant, what is chess 5?
ProRomanianThief@reddit
It's the one where you go back in time to not make that massive blunder.
Reading_username@reddit
Confirmed, trump doesn't play chess 5 then.
Ratouttalab@reddit
He plays chess 6 actually, its the one where you go back to re-do the blunder cause why the fuck not
guska@reddit
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1349230/5D_Chess_With_Multiverse_Time_Travel/
wolacouska@reddit
5D chess
Saiyan-solar@reddit
4d chess with multiverse timetravel
farva_06@reddit
Chess 2 will coincide with the release of Star Citizen.
BobDylansBasterdSon@reddit
Hasbro won't give them the rights for black.
Reading_username@reddit
Przedrzag@reddit
Unfortunately it’s a feature, not a bug
ExBrick@reddit
Stalemate should be decided by points on the board. There's already a system for counting points yet they just don't use it.
Visible-Stuff2489@reddit
At higher levels, drawing with black is fairly impressive. White moving first is a huge advantage.
hurricane_97@reddit
I got into a stalemate in my school chess tournament and was eliminated. Still bitter to this day.
darkcomet222@reddit
Well, I can’t move anywhere that you won’t kill me…let’s call it a draw.
Sapphire_Sage@reddit
Should have used en passant
Dark-Evader@reddit
Skill issue
cantyouwait@reddit
Anyone over 600 ELO has played enough games to not end up in a draw with a queen on the board
Sieg_Force@reddit
I won't lie, I'm hovering around 2000 and I still fuck up once ever so often.
nlzza@reddit
must be under time trouble.
Sieg_Force@reddit
Yup. Or just half-asleep on the toilet pushing wood at 6 AM
Reptile_Cloacalingus@reddit
Im 1300, and although rare, I still make this mistake. I feels worse than losing and worse than blundering a queen.
I also resign when ive clearly lost. Its not worth it IMO to keep trying for the rare chance for a tie. So it never benefits me personally.
axos1@reddit
Just move the queen?
loily4@reddit
Doesn’t black win in two moves if they move wueen to b1?
ender89@reddit
Is queen to E2 not a checkmate? White king can't move to d1, d2, f1, or f2 without being in check, and if white takes the queen at e2 they'll still be in check from the king at e3.
01_Mikoru@reddit
The game is white to move (at least assumed), which if it is, white cannot make a move but is not check. In this case it’s a stalemate (draw, tie) because white has to make a move before black can, but they have no legal moves. I assume this rule came about because in classical chess there’s no time limit, meaning white can just sit there permanently, meaning the game never ends.
LuigiBamba@reddit
But if white corners themselves, how is it not a loss?
01_Mikoru@reddit
Because white has to be in check and not have any legal moves, no one really knows why it’s like that but it is. I guess for chess you win by checkmate, but you can’t do it without check
LuigiBamba@reddit
Yeah, I get that. But it sounds very dumb to me that a valid strategy to avoid a loss is to corner yourself making sure it's your turn when no more legal moves are left.
01_Mikoru@reddit
I’m just saying, if you’re up a queen and all I have is a king and you fail to mate me, you don’t deserve the win, you can literally check with every move
LowlySpirited@reddit
it's white's turn
YoyoLiu314@reddit
It's white to move
ender89@reddit
Is the green text in reference to white or black? Because black can make moves.
SpaceBug176@reddit
Indeed, it's very white to move.
PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit
It's white's move.
full_knowledge_build@reddit
Why isn’t this a checkmate?
JayceTheShockBlaster@reddit
Stalemates are fun because they sometimes give the losing player something to play for.
Doncatron@reddit
I mean QE2 would’ve been a mate..
YumnuggetTheboi@reddit
"No bro since I moved to the corner and I have no moves left I'm actually safe from you now and you can't win!!!"
"You're literally dead to rights right now."
"Yeah but I can't move so the game can't progress so yeah, you lose."
Old-Implement-6252@reddit
Not being able to move into check seems like a rule to help beginners not blunder their king and lose instantly. I dont understand why it still exists at higher levels of play.
Gerdione@reddit
I used to think it was stupid too until I realize chess is supposed to be a war strategy game. Neither side wins if you can't conclusively end the conflict when you have the opportunity to.
outland_king@reddit
This doesn't even make sense in this scenario. The stalemate is due to white not having any moves. It would be akin to having a single army unit surrounded by enemies and then saying its a draw because you cant move your army anywhere. Which is completely dumb considering the black army would just kill them in this fictional scenario.
Gerdione@reddit
Real armies function on supplies and morale and each battle can determine an entire war. You lose too much on one battle, you lose the war.
outland_king@reddit
True but in this scenario, the white team is out of supplies and at low moral (everyone else is captured or dead). Also they are boxed in, their only options if this was a true war would be to die in a last stand, or to surrender, both of which are "wins" for black.
Beneficial-Dig6445@reddit
Honestly stalemate is a good feature of chess. It mostly comes up on pawn endgames where one side has a pawn advantage but can't force promotion because the opposing king can get in front of the pawn. It's good that a single pawn advantage doesn't mean automatic victory
Djinhunter@reddit
This is embarrassing for black.
Throwawayaccount1zp@reddit
Dualiuss@reddit
fantastic writing, i was enthralled from start to finish. the most superior quality of this piece is the fact that it is true to life; indeed i am fully capable of selecting another passtime in which i may capture more moments of unbridled joy, than if i were to continue engaging in chess as a broad category of game, including ranked matches, strategy guide readings and ever more tedious chores.
how marvelous it is to partake in one's own freewill and choose something better to play than chess!
DragonkinPotifer@reddit
No anons right chess is bullshit
NetStaIker@reddit
Bro the kings are in opposition, just deliver check from the 1st rank this dude must be like 1000 smh my head
bartholomewjohnson@reddit
That's a draw.
No-Nose-Goes@reddit
Winning in chess is all encompassing. If you aren’t good enough to mate in these positions, you didn’t win.
Athropon@reddit
To be fair, if you can't checkmate with king and queen you deserve to lose the game. A draw is generous
Young-le-flame@reddit
If you stalemate you don't deserve the win
Reptile_Cloacalingus@reddit
If you have been so thoroughly beaten to the point where you cannot even move you dont deserve an equal placement as your opponent.
DumbNTough@reddit
Annihilate your foe or perish, Anon. Mercy is not an option.
TerribleDance8488@reddit
Skill issue? Just avoid doing that =-=
Ozymandias_1303@reddit
git good
Kaeru-Sennin@reddit
Japanese chess (Shôgi) doesn't have this design flaw
DeFenestrationX@reddit
Always fun when you could theoretically add 10 points of material to the board for white, and doing so in a certain way would improve black's position
thrownededawayed@reddit
If you manage to stalemate with a king queen combo against a boardwalking King you deserve for it to be treated like an L instead of a stalemate, how tf you fail that bad? You're in an undefeatable position and your opponent's in an unwinnable one and your mouth breathing ass managed to fuck that up?? Take the L and walk away man, this is like a toddler missing a tick tock toe and complaining the game is broken.
jaytee1262@reddit
My bother won't play chess with me anymore because the last 3 times I was losing i was able to get him to stalemate me lol.
Banzaiboy262@reddit
There are positions possible in which white has no remaining pieces but manages to trap black (black would have to be severely mentally deficient for this to happen).
The only reasonable way to resolve this is to say the game is a draw, since chess does not actually care how many points of material you have remaining. Therefore the opposite is true, and if white is trapped by black's remaining pieces, the game must be a draw.
CorbinNZ@reddit
If it’s black’s move, Q to B1. Checkmate.
TaserDonut@reddit
A draw by insufficient material is gay sex because it's either only the kings left or there's a single knight or single bishop left
A draw by no valid moves is BDSM because the king can't move
Scurvy_BT@reddit
A stalemate like this should just count as a win.
Beautiful-Guard6539@reddit
If you stalemate on queen and king v king you deserve to have just lost (source I've done it many times by mistake and I deserved to have just lost)
robotwarlord@reddit
You don't lose. It's a stalemate.
dontquestionmyaction@reddit
Gigantic skill issue.
ichydrew@reddit
You win in checkers if you do that
breakfasteveryday@reddit
If its black's turn, can black not just move their queen to d2?
If white's turn, why isn't it checkmate?
MerryGifmas@reddit
It's white's turn. It's not checkmate because the white king is not in check.
finicky88@reddit
That's a win though, no? King can only repeat the same moves over and over.
FactoryOfShit@reddit
If there's no way for the king to move to safety and avoid being captured, you win
But if the king is safe where he is, yet there are no possible safe moves left for your opponent - it's a draw
I_Rarely_Downvote@reddit
I'm sure a smarter person than me can explain why that's a rule but I always thought it was a stupid one, if you've made it so your opponent is out of options surely that should be a win for you?
FactoryOfShit@reddit
Game is played in moves, if no move is possible = game is over right now, and right now the king is technically safe, so it's a draw
It's a bit cringe logically, but this rule does make for some epic comebacks where one can turn a losing game into a draw
I_Rarely_Downvote@reddit
I suppose that makes sense, maybe I'm just salty because I've drawn so many games I should have won on chess.com lol
SnakeOilPlagueDoctor@reddit
Given how old chess is, I'm sure it's just a tried and true mechanic that makes the game more interesting. So removing it would lessen the game.
From a conceptual standpoint though, yeah it's pretty weird.
Bakirkalaylayici@reddit
Problem is that what to do when you have no move and not in check. This is a simple position but there may be a positions not as simple as this one which more pieces on board and you still have no move.
Also a lot of the drawn endgames became win without stalemates.
Lastly it is really fun to get stalemate when you are losing
PrrrromotionGiven1@reddit
The practical reason for this rule is that it gives an obviously beaten player a reason not to surrender. If they play smart they still stand a chance of stalemate, sometimes via this method.
not_just_an_AI@reddit
because your turn never ends, you aren't allowed to move into a check position, so you have no options, but you must take a move that you can't take.
Herzyr@reddit
Depending on your standing in the tournament you may lose or win some points no?
nage_@reddit
just move the queen to anywhere on 1 besides D1 and F1
fizzyboii@reddit
every hard game has a "git gud" moment
Succubia@reddit
Aren't the black pieces winning in one move in this case?
TheLittleBelowski@reddit
Not if it's white's turn, then they have no legal moves and the match has to end in a draw, according to the other comments in the thread.
ReliefZealousideal84@reddit
Yes but black won’t get to move again as white can’t move meaning the game is already over.
Succubia@reddit
I see..
brannerrr@reddit
Literally just to bait for losing side to increase playtime and get more mtx sales
Tsorm@reddit
It was designed that way so the less autistic on the game didn't throw tantrums on losing.
Lomasmanda1@reddit
If you are better than your opponent why did you just win?
morzikei@reddit
>getting this worked up over a draw
🦅🦅🦅🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🏈🏈🏈
internetlad@reddit
Huh