Originally posted by GrobzillaI'll have to applaud you. It's not often I see people actually admitting that they're wrong while posting anonymously in the internet.
Sorry you went to all that trouble, but see my post directly above. Between that, and the possibility of it hurting attacking chess, I'm leaving the issue alone.
The rule was never proven logical to my satisfaction, but it was proven "good enough" for the vast majority of the playing populous. So, I take my leave of the issue.
Guess I'll read your post now, it looks like you went to some trouble. Thanks.
Originally posted by VartiovuoriI appreciate your good graces, sincerely, but I didn't admit any wrongness. I simply agreed to let it be due to its "a popularis" status. It was never proven logical to my satisfaction, but that doesn't mean it can't exist and be used, mostly happily, by the playing population.
I'll have to applaud you. It's not often I see people actually admitting that they're wrong while posting anonymously in the internet.
I'd like to think the spirit of your kudos would still apply to my ability to accept a mediated position, though no change occurred except for in my head, and maybe some of yours.
Originally posted by GrobzillaThanks for the clarification. In that case I disagree with you, I cannot see why a player who has managed to make an error of judgement should be rewarded more highly than their opponent. If it had been the other way around then I would have considered the idea more logical.
Opposite.
It is often stated that chess is war, a position I don't agree with as chess is just game after all, however to use the analogy, it could be argued that most of the Afghanistan invasions of the past were stalemates, the USSR, Britain, the US and NATO couldn't find a way to use superior forces to 'win'. So too in Korea and Vietnam. Why should the aggressors get .75 for failing, whilst those defending successfully get only .25.
Just my two pennies worth, and as a relentless chess player I can only work from a purest logical position.
Perhaps this position shows that it isn't straightforward to establish one stalemate scoring system as more 'logical' than another.
The key question here is - should Black's position be considered disadvantageous? He can't move after 1.Bb2, but is his position weak? White has no immediate way to break black's defenses, assuming he has one at all.
In a position like this, the logical scoring seems to be 0.5-0.5. Black can't move, but white can't break his defense. The black King isn't in any danger.
Originally posted by SwissGambitInstead of 1.Bb2, I would play1. Rd7
[pgn]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "nb1R2bk/b1p3rn/1pP5/1P6/8/8/8/K1B4R w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]
1. Bb2
[/pgn]
Perhaps this position shows that it isn't straightforward to establish one stalemate scoring system as more 'logical' than another.
The ke ...[text shortened]... white can't break his defense. The black King isn't in any danger.
Originally posted by SurtismSpot on
Thanks for the clarification. In that case I disagree with you, I cannot see why a player who has managed to make an error of judgement should be rewarded more highly than their opponent. If it had been the other way around then I would have considered the idea more logical.
It is often stated that chess is war, a position I don't agree with as chess is ...[text shortened]... nies worth, and as a relentless chess player I can only work from a purest logical position.
Originally posted by SurtismI think the same thing- I assign more "chess kudos" to the guy who pulled off the stalemate, not the poor chump who fell for it.
Thanks for the clarification. In that case I disagree with you, I cannot see why a player who has managed to make an error of judgement should be rewarded more highly than their opponent. If it had been the other way around then I would have considered the idea more logical.
It is often stated that chess is war, a position I don't agree with as chess is ...[text shortened]... nies worth, and as a relentless chess player I can only work from a purest logical position.
I dont think that the rules should be changed. I have a rule that I never ever resign a match and this is what happens when someone wants to show off and get funny.
1. e4 e6 2. Bf1c4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Bc4b3 Ng8f6 5. h3 a5 6. d3 a4 7. Qd1e2 Bf8e7 8. Bb3xa4 Ra8xa4 9. Nb1c3 Ra4a6 10. Ng1f3 Ra6e6 11. Bc1e3 O-O 12. d4 b6 13. Qe2d3 Nf6e4 14. O-O Bc8a6 15. Nc3b5 c6 16. c4 dxc4 17. Qd3c2 cxb5 18. Rf1d1 Qd8d5 19. Nf3e5 f6 20. Ne5f3 Nb8c6 21. Nf3e1 f5 22. f3 Ne4g3 23. Be3f2 f4 24. b3 Be7f6 25. bxc4 bxc4 26. Qc2b2 Nc6xd4 27. Qb2a3 Nd4e2 28. Kg1h2 Ng3f1 29. Kh2h1 Qd5a5 30. Qa3xa5 bxa5 31. Ne1c2 Bf6xa1 32. Nc2xa1 Ne2g3 33. Kh1g1 Re6e2 34. a4 Rf8b8 35. Bf2xg3 Nf1xg3 36. Na1b3 Rb8e8 37. Kg1h2 Re2e1 38. Nb3d2 Re1xd1 39. Nd2f1 Ng3xf1 40. Kh2g1 c3 41. Kg1f2 c2 42. h4 c1=Q 43. Kf2g1 Nf1e3 44. Kg1f2 Ba6f1 45. h5 Bf1xg2 46. h6 Bg2xf3 47. hxg7 h6 48. Kf2xf3 h5 49. Kf3f2 h4 50. Kf2f3 h3 51. Kf3f2 h2 52. Kf2e2 h1=Q 53. Ke2f2 Re8e4 54. Kf2e2 Re4xa4 55. Ke2f2 Ra4a1 56. Kf2e2 Ne3g2 57. Ke2f3 Ng2e1 58. Kf3f2 Kg8f7 59. g8=Q Kf7f6 60. Qg8f8 Kf6e5 61. Qf8e8 Ke5d4 62. Qe8d8 Kd4c4 63. Qd8c7 Kc4b4 64. Qc7b8 Kb4a4 65. Qb8e8 Ka4b3 66. Qe8b8 Kb3a3 67. Qb8f8 Ka3b2 68. Qf8b8 Kb2c2 69. Qb8c8 Kc2d2 70. Qc8d8 Ne1d3 71. Qd8xd3 Kd2xd3 1/2-1/2