is this a draw?

[Anonymous No.9881577]

[Anonymous No.9881589]

>>9881577
fuck off anon

[Anonymous No.9881599]

>>9881577
black or white turn?

[Anonymous No.9881606]

>>9881599
White turn

[Anonymous No.9881609]

>>9881599
I made my move and I trusted that the white king would move but the game determined an automatic draw

[Anonymous No.9881613]

>>9881606
black can still win
white can't, if black is not autistic

[Anonymous No.9881621]

>>9881609
write a angry letter to the programmer

[Anonymous No.9881625]

>>9881609
Yeah, that's called stalemate, it's a draw.
Have you even read the rules of chess?
En passant will blow your mind

[Anonymous No.9881725]

The king can't move to any space without getting fucked, but he's currently not threatened so it's a draw.

[Anonymous No.9881734]

Pretty sure if you make the other king unable to move then you win.

[Anonymous No.9881739]

>>9881734

No, if you check the king AND make him unable to move, you win. If you make him unable to move without check, it's a draw.

[Anonymous No.9881746]

>>9881739
That's fucked

[Anonymous No.9881748]

>>9881746

Haha, you get used to it. That rules makes sure there's some thinking going into the game, even if one player has a massive advantage. You can't just randomly move shit around until you win by accident, you must avoid the draw as well.

[Anonymous No.9883858]

>>9881577
no

[Anonymous No.9884475]

>>9881577
It's a draw

[Anonymous No.9884491]

>>9883858
a stalemate is a draw
>>9881734
you must achieve victory by checkmate or forfeit (or time if you play with a timer)

[Anonymous No.9884492]

>>9881577
You obviously don't know how to play connect 4

[Anonymous No.9884493]

>>9884491
*resignation would be the term for forfeit

[Anonymous No.9884495]

>>9884492

[Anonymous No.9884570]

>>9881577
>discuss a fucking board-game on a science and mathematics imageboard

you people are fucking retarded and this board has truly become utter shit

[Anonymous No.9884582]

>>9881577
>Two queens
>STILL can't deliver the checkmate

These are the people telling you your major is for brainlets

[Anonymous No.9884641]

>>9881577
No. It's just a matter of time. The king is defenseless.

[Anonymous No.9884662]

Sci is full of retards.
>>9881589
>>9881599
>>9881606
>>9881609
>>9881613
>>9881621
>>9881734

[Anonymous No.9885325]

Why hasn't anyone pointed out that the situation in the OP is illegal?

In the game of chess, it cannot happen that a piece is promoted to be a queen as happens with "kings" in checkers. Thus, one player cannot have two queens, and so the question is void.

(b-but- muh internet). Please. Look harder for the details in the future.

[Anonymous No.9885338]

A completely non related post about science or math is allowed but a post about advice regarding University science related majors gets you a ban, kill yourselves mods

[Anonymous No.9885362]

>>9885325
A pawn can be promoted to queen.

[Anonymous No.9885369]

>>9881577
Stalemate. Forced draw, white can't move but it's not in check.

[Anonymous No.9885683]

>>9885338
>A completely non related post about science or math is allowed but a post about advice regarding University science related majors gets you a ban, kill yourselves mods
Imagine being so much of a brainlet that you can't read a simple sticky which clearly states that you should go to /adv/ for that type of post, and then being an even larger brainlet that you don't understand how chess and mathematics are deeply connected. kys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#Mathematics_and_computers

[Anonymous No.9885710]

>>9881748
>That rules makes sure there's some thinking going into the game, even if one player has a massive advantage. You can't just randomly move shit around until you win by accident, you must avoid the draw as well.
thats the dumbest justification for stalemate=draw rule I have ever seen. (it's also one of the most common)

in scribble chess, when you dont have any legal moves, you die. (or rather, you are allowed to walk into check so running out of legal moves is pretty difficult to begin with)
get rid of that arbitrary rule that doesnt allow the king to step into check, and BAM, stalemate disappears.
this is the mostlogical way to resolve this issue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#Proposed_rule_change
>Grandmaster Larry Kaufman writes, "In my view, calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents the ultimate zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken"

another retard-rule in chess is the perpetual check=draw rule. again, in asian chess variants a perpetual check is simply a loss for the checking player.

why are (western) chess players such semen-slurping draw lovers?

[Anonymous No.9885776]

>>9885710
Checkmate is the only way to win/lose

>unable to check
>unable to move

Nobody wins. Seems pretty logical to me.

[Anonymous No.9885789]

>>9881577
>>9884475
does it draw if the enemy has no possible moves to make?

[Anonymous No.9885796]

>>9885683
> t. high school student
fuck off, the mathematical aspects of chess aren't deep for shit. the various problems that arise may be combinatorial at the very least, but even then they are fairly trivial.

if this was a go thread, I'd somewhat understand. Go actually has a consistent mathematical structure to it and genuine special cases actually arise from the rules. this is the reason why the mathematics of chess is a single paragraph on wikipedia whilst the mathematics of go has it's own page

stop trying to legitimise your useless hobby and take this shit to /tg/

[Anonymous No.9885804]

>>9885796
Every thread on sci is never about science lmao. Relax.
>>9885710
If you read the exact same article you'd realize that having stalemate be a win would cause pawns to become even more valuable than before in the end game.

[Anonymous No.9885811]

>>9885710
didn't always used to be that way. Stalemate was a win in the ancestors of chess, chaturanga and chatranj. Stalemate was sometimes played as a win up to about the 1850s. With 3-fold repetition draws, it was one of the last rules to be finalized.

The stalemate rule affects almost all of endgame theory, especially pawn endgames.

[Anonymous No.9885813]

>>9884475
right queen to e5, left queen to a1 and it's mate no?

[Anonymous No.9885841]

>>9885811
>stalemate rule affects almost all of endgame theory, especially pawn endgames.

>>9885804
>If you read the exact same article you'd realize that having stalemate be a win would cause pawns to become even more valuable than before in the end game.

I am very much aware of this and think thats a good thing. The less draws there are the better.

[Anonymous No.9885949]

>>9885796
>fuck off, the mathematical aspects of chess aren't deep for shit. the various problems that arise may be combinatorial at the very least, but even then they are fairly trivial.
No, you fuck off. I have a masters degree. It doesn't matter how trivial you may think chess is in relation to mathematics, it's still math related.

>if this was a go thread, I'd somewhat understand. Go actually has a consistent mathematical structure to it and genuine special cases actually arise from the rules. this is the reason why the mathematics of chess is a single paragraph on wikipedia whilst the mathematics of go has it's own page
oh please, go play with your rocks and leave this thread for serious discussion

>stop trying to legitimise your useless hobby and take this shit to /tg/
t. brainlet who can't understand chess

>>9885813
it's white's turn, hence the stalemate

[Anonymous No.9886006]

>>9881613
wow, you're a dum dum

[Anonymous No.9886062]

>>9885949
ooooh, masters degree. gj bro, that really makes your opinion more worthy

> It doesn't matter how trivial you may think chess is in relation to mathematics, it's still math related.
the point is, oh great and intelligent masters degree holder, that chess is a lot more relevant to /tg/ than /sci/, mostly because nobody on this thread is actually discussing the mathematics of chess

> leave this thread for serious discussion
you and the other retards on this thread are literally arguing over stalemates and draws. very serious.

> t. brainlet who can't understand chess
I understand chess enough to say that this thread belongs in /tg/.
also inb4 my FIDE rating is actually higher than yours, if you even have one. given that you consider the endgame in OPs post 'serious discussion' in the first place, I doubt that's the case

[Anonymous No.9886070]

>>9886062
imagine being so triggered by a chess thread that you spurge out like this. have you taken your meds today anon?

[Anonymous No.9886215]

>>9881577
White to move: stalemate
Black to move: mate in 1

[Anonymous No.9886251]

>>9885710
>asian chess variants
Daily reminder many variants of go rulesets say that repetitive moves mean you should start the game from scratch

[Anonymous No.9886334]

>>9886251
>many variants of go rulesets say that repetitive moves mean you should start the game from scratch
not a single rule variant says that AFAIK. some declare it 'no result' in case of a complicated repitition, tho.

Background for people who dont play go: go is fundamentally a very "loopy" game. Many cycles in the game"tree" exist, but the most common by far are 2-cycles (called "ko" = eternity in japanese)

2-cycles are forbidden under all rulesets; this is the simple ko rule

When it comes to longer cycles, rulesets diverge.
You can for example have two (double ko) or even three (triple ko) independent 2-cycles. double ko is not usually a problem, but triple ko is.

The logical way to deal with all this is to simply say that no board-position shall ever be repeated, thereby eliminating all cycles. this is the so called superko rule, where you must decide whether the side-to-move should be considered part of the board-position.

pic related is a simple triple ko:
>Black takes a, White takes b, Black takes c, White retakes a, Black retakes b and White retakes c, repeating the original position with the same player to play. Under the simple ko rule, Black could now retake a again, and the cycle would go on forever

[AnalDestructor29 No.9887436]

>>9881577
>>9881625
this
you should have promoted it to a rook OP
>.......c1=R
>Kb2, Qc3+
>Kc2, Qb3#
checkmate

[AnalDestructor29 No.9887440]

>>9885789
yes, it's called stalemate (when you can't make any legal moves and your king is not in check)

[Anonymous No.9887446]

>>9881577
An illegal move happened to get us to this state

[Anonymous No.9887450]

>>9886070
as a matter of fact, I haven’t
Thanks for the reminder anon

[Anonymous No.9887453]

>>9887436
You can mate faster with 1.Qb3+, Ka1 2. Qb1#, no promotion needed. Or if you want to promote, 2. c1=R# for style points.

[AnalDestructor29 No.9887461]

>>9887453
I feel severely retarded when I'm shown faster ways to mate
I remember it once took me like 11 moves to make a mate in 2

t. ~1300 ELO brainlet, peaked at ~1400

[AnalDestructor29 No.9887463]

>>9887461
forgot pic

[Anonymous No.9887490]

>>9887446
What makes you say that?

[Anonymous No.9888398]

>>9885841
It makes the game more shit. Most draws aren't even stalemates.

[Anonymous No.9888527]

I don't get it. surely anywhere the king moves he is fucked. A1, B1, B2, B3, A3 and It's Checkmate no?

[Anonymous No.9888529]

>>9888527
Read the damn thread.

[Anonymous No.9888572]

>>9881577
>Promotes to Q because brainlet
should have promoted to knight

[Anonymous No.9888574]

What's black's best move here?
A decent chess player can solve this in <5 seconds, and I'm not exaggerating.

[Anonymous No.9888578]

>>9888574
queen gamble at d2

[Anonymous No.9888583]

>>9888574
>>9888578
sorry, parallax fucked me over badly
rook c8 or b8

[Anonymous No.9888592]

>>9888578
no, it's queen takes pawn, then R-R3 mate
it's not really a gamble if it's mate in the very next move

[Anonymous No.9888631]

>>9881725
Why is this a rule? If making a move would lead to a lost game, and you therefore choose not to move, then there's no real reason why the option of just delaying your choice indefinitely to force a draw shouldn't be available at any other point during the game. It's a bad rule that has no right to exist.

>oh, I messed up the midgame and this exchange developed badly for me
>I'll just do nothing and settle for a draw

[Anonymous No.9888648]

>>9888631
No, you can't just choose not to move. But it's a rule of chess that moving into check is illegal.

So it's not that you just choose not to make a move because you would lose, it's that you have literally no legal moves. That's why it's a draw.

[Anonymous No.9888654]

>>9888648
The fact that no move is legal is a consequence of illogical rules design in the first place. Would there be any problem if the game were to end only if the king piece actually got captured? No. So there is no need to declare 'moving a king into a mate' an "illegal move".

[Anonymous No.9888668]

>>9888654
Because once the king is in a position to be captured then the only way to keep playing is for the opponent to be a retard and just let it go by.

[Anonymous No.9888673]

>>9881725
With the rules I normally play with, a stalemate means the side whose king is boxed in wins. I like it because it provides a way for the losing side to recover at the last minute, and means that the player with the upper hand still has to be cautious with his final endgame.

[Anonymous No.9888674]

>>9885710
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RHLtx9r2LA
The Post

Also, >>>/tg/

[Anonymous No.9888675]

>>9885710
>In my view, calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical
Pure autism. He wants the rules to be generated from some sort of axioms. Rules of a game don't work like that, they're engineered to give interesting outcomes.

[Anonymous No.9888679]

>>9888668
What are you on about? Once a king is in a position to be captured, the opponent actually captures the piece and the game ends with a clear winner and loser. That's how it should be.

The current rules are contrivance built upon contrivance just to uphold some antiquated notions of lèse-majesté.

[Anonymous No.9888682]

>>9888679
>the opponent actually captures the piece and the game ends with a clear winner and loser.
Ok, so why even make this move? In your system the king can be captured, but the game can't end until the other player captures him. What's the point of this final step? There's no other move to make, so it's just a formality.

[Anonymous No.9888686]

>>9888682
To streamline the rules and prevent situations where you'd lose if only there wasn't a special baseless rule for this special situation that abruptly terminated the game.

[Anonymous No.9888687]

>>9888682
A formality, yes, just like players in Go usually surrender instead of always playing until there's no legal move left. There's not a single good reason why the same can't be done in chess.

Instead you shy away from the inconvenience of having to play one extra move (*gasp*) by inventing a completely new and particular draw condition. How about no.

[Anonymous No.9888694]

>>9888687
>>9888686
>baseless
>inventing
I love how this is triggering your malformed, autistic brain circuits.

[Anonymous No.9888697]

>>9888694
And I love how you have not a single good argument except "that's how it's done". Now if that isn't true autism...

[Anonymous No.9888698]

>>9888697
Why are you so fixated on taking the final move to take the king. The move is implied. What's the gain there? It assuages your need for a "proper ending"? You can just imagine it happening offscreen if you like.

[Anonymous No.9888702]

>>9888698
The gain is getting rid of an unneccessary rule that unfairly disadvantages the better player. This is not a difficult concept.

[Anonymous No.9888709]

>>9888702
>unfairly disadvantages the better player
It doesn't unfairly disadvantage the better player. Good players understand stalemate and how to avoid it.

[Anonymous No.9888711]

>>9888709
Now you're engaged in circular reasoning, and you still haven't given a proper reason why we should keep the rule.

Goodbye, you're beyond reason.

[Anonymous No.9888712]

>>9888702
>The gain is getting rid of an unneccessary rule that unfairly disadvantages the better player. This is not a difficult concept.
Actually, getting rid of the stalemate rule would put black at a disadvantage. The game is remarkably balanced as it is.

[Anonymous No.9888822]

>>9881577
umm
if it's black's move, queen from e3 to b3
if it's white's move, it's a draw and you're a brainlet for handing it to him

[Anonymous No.9889155]

>>9888675
>Rules of a game don't work like that, they're engineered to give interesting outcomes.
precisely, and a draw is a horribly uninteresting outcome.

I know it's difficult for chess players to grasp, but it doesnt have to be like that.
chess rules have changed many time historically to make the game more competitive / interesting; I see no reason why we shouldnt get rid of most draws by eliminating stalemates and perpetuals. and switch to chess960 to get rid of computer preparation while we're at it.

at top level, merely 3/10 games (30%) of games in international chess are decisive (ie non-draws).
at the same level of play in shogi, 99/100 (99%) of games are decisive.
at the same level in go, 100% of games are decisive (go doesnt have draws in most ruleset, just the occasional game (much less than 1%) that has to be repeated due to a weird repitition)

>>9888398
>It makes the game more shit.
so you have played the game with stalemate=loss-for-weaker-player rule for years I take it and made an informed comparison? nice, let ut hear more about it.

>Most draws aren't even stalemates.
as the other anon said, endgames tend to be EXTREMELY drawing due to stalemate=draw shit.
without stalemate chucklefuckery, essentially all pawn-up vs lone king endgames are WINS.
fuck you and your half points.

[Anonymous No.9889556]

>>9888592
whoa

more plz, also any suggestions for training software besides peshk@ ?

[Anonymous No.9889562]

>>9888574
Ya im average at chess and i say m8 in 2 in 1 second.

[Anonymous No.9889646]

>>9889556
Absolutely, the site I got that problem from is free and very good - chesstempo.com.
Get an account and you'll get a tactics rating and problems tailored to your skill level. If you do like 20 problems a day, you'll quickly get to the point where you can crush any casual player.

[Anonymous No.9889651]

>>9889646
thx

[Anonymous No.9889782]

>>9889155
I'm not sure if you have an ELO of <1000 or that you're acting like a retard intentionally, but if you're in a winning position where your opponent WANTS to intentionally do stalemate and he STILL gets it, it means that you're such a shit player that you can't even play a winning end game.

If that's the case, maybe you aren't qualified enough to start talking about whether or not stalemates should be removed.

[Anonymous No.9890518]

>>9888673
that's not the real rules. The Chess Titans that comes with Windows counts a stalemate as a draw, which it should.
Instead of snatching defeat from from the jaws of victory, it's snatching only a tie

[Anonymous No.9892007]

>>9889556

[Anonymous No.9892012]

Why should it be illegal to move your own king into mate? Why not just count this as a simple loss?

[Anonymous No.9892018]

>>9892007
Without calculating too much, I'd probably go for Qxg4, with the idea of 1..Rxg4 2.Re8+ Kc7 3. Nb5+ winning the queen back. So in the end we should be up an exchange once the king takes back the knight. After that I was originally thinking the bishop on g2 might also be toast with Rg1 coming, but I guess Bh3 saves it.
Still, the position should be winning for white.
t. lowly 1800 on lichess

[Anonymous No.9893233]

>>9884570
Chess is math, fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.9894008]

>>9892018
not really bogpilling, if true

[Anonymous No.9894073]

>>9881577
Instead of moving the pawn one up you should have checked him with your queen and then mate him at b1.

[Anonymous No.9894122]

>>9894008
What?

[Anonymous No.9894130]

>>9894122
i wanna see puzzles that pull the rug under your feet

[Anonymous No.9894174]

>>9892007
Why would black ever make that move?
Maybe Qb6 to pin the knight and hold the Queen rook. White Queen is already paralyzed.
White can look to file his rooks or offer or
Black declines Qg3 with Be4. Now that would be a match.

[Anonymous No.9894182]

>>9894174
What does white do?

[Anonymous No.9894186]

>>9894174
If it weren't for the tactic I mentioned here >>9892018 then it would be a pretty scary move.
If, for example, you just move the queen out of danger to h5, then black can play Qxf4+, and your position begins to look very scary, and you're likely to lose a lot of material or get mated.

[Anonymous No.9894441]

>>9894182
trick question?
moving queen to somewhere less dangerous

[Anonymous No.9894554]

>>9894182

F5
Discovered check after which you win a rook

[Anonymous No.9894572]

>>9894554
RxQ

[Anonymous No.9894843]

>>9894182
maybe Qe3?

[Anonymous No.9894873]

Are those queens? If so it's a stalemate and black played a shit endgame.

If they are rooks black can win in a few moves.

They do make chess engines for this sort of thing you know?

[Anonymous No.9895235]

>>9885813
there are dozens of ways to mate in 1, 2 or 3 here. anon still managed to stalemate, which is pretty fucking impressive

[Anonymous No.9895237]

>>9888574
I suck at chess and saw queen takes h2 after literally two seconds.

[Anonymous No.9895239]

>>9894554
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.9895312]

>>9894843
I do think Qe3 is the most playable move. I can't find one where white ends ahead.

[Anonymous No.9895548]

>>9894174
Btw, I just checked in stockfish, and every move except Qxg4 is losing for white. So if black didn't see that reply (which does require looking ahead a few moves to see the king forced to c7 and the knight fork) then the move could look very appealing.

[Anonymous No.9895590]

>>9881609
if the king is not being atacked but it dies if it moves it is a draw. literally the definition of chess draw, retard

[Anonymous No.9895593]

>>9881577
yes. why is everyone talking shit they dont know about? lol

[Anonymous No.9896027]

>>9895548
Except for giving up many winning positions and being completely countered it is a good move.

[Anonymous No.9896035]

>>9896027
Well you asked why anyone would play it. The answer is, because they didn't see the tactic it allows, which a lot of mediocre players wouldn't.
What's your rating? If it's below 1400, I wouldn't expect you to see this tactic in a 10 minute game. Even a fairly strong player could easily overlook it in a blitz game.

[Anonymous No.9896426]

>>9881577
Stalemate

[Anonymous No.9897627]

>>9896035
Rook in open file with a sight depth of what, three? Yeah, pick a lower number.

[Anonymous No.9897722]

>>9895593
where do you think you are?

[The Lord No.9897752]

>>9897722
I'm on Earth

[Anonymous No.9897792]

>>9881746
It is sometimes a last ditch super-secret strategy by the losing side to escape with a draw. Remember it, and it might save you!

[Anonymous No.9897803]

>>9885325
You can have as many extra queens as you can promote. Or all rooks, or all knights, or all bishops, too, if you want.

[Anonymous No.9897832]

>>9881577
>>9881606
> White A2 to B2
> Black C4 to B4
> White B2 to A2
> Black E3 to E2
> Black wins
?

[Anonymous No.9897946]

>>9881577

You fucking morons. I hope most of you are just trolling.

If it's black to move, then as long as he's not full retard, he wins. Just move E3 to B3 and get checkmate. If it's white to move, then it's a draw, and black should be hung to cleanse the gene pool of his retardation.

[Anonymous No.9897950]

>>9897832

> White A2 to B2
>Moving the king directly into check

[Anonymous No.9898603]

>>9888631

Please learn the rules. In no game ever can you just say "I'm not going to move anymore."

[Anonymous No.9898614]

>>9892012

It's called resigning, and you don't even have to move to do that.

[Anonymous No.9898820]

>>9889782
>if you're in a winning position where your opponent WANTS to intentionally do stalemate and he STILL gets it, it means that you're such a shit player that you can't even play a winning end game.
magnus carlsen had a winning position against fabiano recently (computer gave more than +3 advantage at some points) but didnt manage to win it (fabiano got a draw).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbs4tWxOezc

this is not because magnus carlsen is a "shit player" (as you call him), but because the game is inherently heavily drawish.

if at most points in a game,
* 5% of moves result in a win
* 5% of moves result in a loss
* 90% of moves result in a draw

then the game is overly drawish and generally shit for competitive play

[Anonymous No.9898836]

>>9892012
>>9898614
he obviously means moving king into check, and it is indeed illegal (and that is a retarded rule, as I have pointed out here >>9885710 )

>>9898603
>In no game ever can you just say "I'm not going to move anymore."
but this is literally what happens in go.
in go, once you cant make a sensible move anymore, you pass (which means you do nothing and your opponent is now on move again).
the game ends when both players pass consecutively.

please note that I am NOT arguing that chess should introduce pass-moves (since I believe zugzwang is an interesting/important strategic concept). I am just pointing out your ignorance on the subject

[Anonymous No.9901172]

>>9896426
a grandmaster goes into a bakery.

>I would like to return this bread
>why?
>because it's stale, m8
>really?
>yeah, just check, m8

[Anonymous No.9901425]

>>9881577
Why promote?
>Qb3+, Ka1
>Qb1#

[Anonymous No.9901430]

>>9881577
You're stupid. If you'd promote to a rook instead you'd have won.

[Anonymous No.9901433]

>>9881577
it's 3 on 1, just beat the shit out of that cracka

[Anonymous No.9901434]

>>9888682
Because now we have this retarded concept of stalemate?

[Anonymous No.9901444]

>>9901434
you could literally call a freshly set board a stalemate

[Anonymous No.9901478]

>>9901444
If you have nothing to say but drivel like that, just say nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.9901613]

>>9889155
>precisely, and a draw is a horribly uninteresting outcome
how is conceding more interesting than fighting for a draw

[Anonymous No.9901625]

>>9901433
This. It's supposed to represent a battle. In what world would this situation be a stalemate?

[Anonymous No.9902687]

>>9901613
>how is conceding more interesting than fighting for a draw
false dichotomy. how about fighting for a win? you think thats more interesting than fighting for a draw? (I think so)

shogi for example is razor sharp, as in the endgame it becomes a race to checkmate.
if in chess you can still "fight for a draw", in shogi you can fight for a win.

[Anonymous No.9902705]

>>9885776
>Checkmate is the only way to win/lose
no, capturing the king is the way to win.

the stalemate rule is very counterintuitive. go and try to teach the rules of chess to some young kids. they usually dont understand the difference between stalemate and checkmate, since in both cases the king cannot escape being capture.

the kind of braindamage it takes to consider situations where one side is so overpowered they have literally zero legal moves, as "even"/balanced is simply beyond me.

just look at the OP's position. two extra queens. and you're defending that this is an even position. let that sink in for a moment

[Anonymous No.9902711]

>>9889556
lichess has over a 100,000 tactical puzzles

also, how is this thread still going on after a week?

[Anonymous No.9902713]

8=================d
XDXDXDXD

[Anonymous No.9902720]

>>9902705
They defend stalemate because it is in the rules. It is in the rules because they continue to defend it.

I don't doubt that if the official rules had a paragraph that said "Do the Macarena whenever a piece enters a column with the same number as the last digit of the current move count", they'd defend it just as fervently. It makes for a more interesting game, after all.

[Anonymous No.9902845]

>>9902705
oh really? then show 1 game in the history of grandmaster chess where someone has ever captured the king. the game is over when there's a checkmate. the other side has no legal move, but they don't ever "pass" and let the other player capture the king to complete the victory.

[Anonymous No.9903131]

>>9902687
How many moves for this shogi puzzle?

[Anonymous No.9904445]

>>9902705
>two extra queens. and you're defending that this is an even position. let that sink in for a moment
Stalemate is the game grinding to a halt because the player who's turn it is has no legal move to play. The difference in strenght is irrelevant. Why is this so hard to grasp?
And for the OP: only a noob would let this go to stalemate. Which is an argument IN FAVOR of the rule.

[Anonymous No.9904452]

>>9881577
[math]\mathcal{Yes}[/math]

[Anonymous No.9905020]

>>9904452
NO

[Anonymous No.9905765]

>>9905020
[math]maybe[/math]

[Anonymous No.9906200]

>>9902687
I think you'll have to change a lot more about chess than removing stalemate rules if your goal is to make it "everything's possible" until the end. As it stands, once a player can tell they can't win anymore, they may still try to force a draw. If you remove that possibility, there's no reason to continue the game, especially if you're playing multiple games. Better to save the energy for the next one.

[Anonymous No.9906206]

>>9888631
>Why is this a rule?
Basically to keep the game interesting even when one guy gets an advantage, which is a mjaor problem in strategy games - good strategies often take out all the risk of defeat as early as possible, which leaves a large, boring gap between the game being decided (when one dude pulls ahead far enough) and the game being formally won.