Author: Mike S.
Date: 20:14:38 11/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2002 at 02:39:16, Louis Fagliano wrote: >I've got an excellent idea to make chess more interesting. > >It doesn't involve enlarging the board and adding new pieces. > >It doesn't involve destroying opening theory as does Fischer Random Chess. > >It's simple. Change the stalemate drawing rule. A stalemate is a win; just as >good as a checkmate. After all, isn't zugzwang considered a particularly >elegant way to force a win? And shouldn't a stalemate be considered as an >extreme form of zugzwang? Being someone who is "into chess tradition" so to speak, I can only warn that changing the stalemate rule would result in *another game*. The stalemate rule is a basic one, part of the *definition of chess* (articles 1...5 of the FIDE rules). Btw. the changes which were done in the 50 moves rule were the maximum of what was tolerable IMO, and I agree with the decision to return to the rule with no exceptions. That is the chess definition as it were (reflecting the character of chess being a *game* in that case, especially). Note also that a lot of games of chess history would be affected by that (not only those where a stalemate occured on the board, but of course the many where it was part of the plans and threats, etc. too). You'd practically throw away big parts of chess history. Just think how even basic things, like King and Pawn versus Pawn would be completely changed by that, when a - now - drawn position, resulting in i.e. a stalemate like wKe6,wPe7,bKe8 (btm) in the end, suddenly would be a win! Just to explain that it wouldn't be the chess we have now, anymore. (Furthermore it was Russel's idea to do something about the effects of White's advantage of the first move and of vast opening preparation.) I think chess is more interesting *with* the stalemate rule, because it brings additional motifs into the game when it's a draw, than when it's a win. You probably have experienced that in blitz games, when one side has 2 or 3 queens against nothing :o) The superior side is forced to apply at least a minimum of precision still. Regards, M.Scheidl
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.