cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/25112863
Source unknown, some sites assign it to Oppressive Silence comics by Ethan Vincent. But that website in the corner is shady
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
204 points (98.1% liked)
AnarchyChess
5326 readers
216 users here now
Holy hell
Other chess communities:
[email protected]
[email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The first part of your comment doesn't justify the second part. But it also isn't true that it rarely happens randomly. It rarely happens randomly in high-ranked games. Bad rules like stalemate have a much stronger effect on low ranked games, which is what most people play.
Stalemates and forcing draws are pretty important imo as someone who dosen't play and only watch. It's gave the game a twist that let the losing player a way to fight back from a loosing position to a draw (that feels like a win).
They are an important part of the game, but they aren't a good twist. If you got rid of stalemate, then the losing player would just resign. Nothing wrong with that in a game that's effectively over.
The reason I think stalemate makes the game more interesting is it gives an out to the losing player.
Suppose a game where black just lost their last piece (outside of the king). With the stalemate rule, white still needs to be careful and skillful in executing their checkmate to actually win the game. Giving black some way even in a losing situation to get theirself into a better outcome than a flat out loss. It allows more opportunities for games to reach their natural conclusion in a way that still allows both players to do something to get a better outcome.
And I don't know about you, but I think a game that could end up as a draw right up until the end is a more interesting game to play and much more entertaining to watch than watching 30 turns of white maintaining an early all the way to the midgame when black decides it's just a waste of time at this point and resigns.
I can understand that if you don't play the fucking game you don't mind the trapped safe king.
The first part of my comment entirely justifies the second part. It's a strategy a skilled player currently losing can use to avoid the loss, not a fluke. And no, it also doesn't randomly happen on low ranked games unless by low ranked you mean "absolute beginners who didn't even know about the rule".
There's a whole level of players who simply weren't thinking about stalemate at the moment. They know the rule, they just weren't thinking. Trapping the king so he can't move and nothing can be done should be a win.
It shouldn't. The whole point of a check mate is that the king will inevitably be captured. If you're in no position to capture the king, then you can't win.
That's only true because Kings can't move into check. This is an unnecessary rule that, like stalemate, makes little difference to high level players, but is a bad rule for low level players.
You seem to have a thing for calling anything beyond absolute beginners "high level". Stop it.
You'd call most people who play chess "absolute beginners". Most people would hang their king if they could and would never remember the stalemate rule until it was too late.