New answers tagged

10

There are already many good answers here that address your question from a hypothetical point of view. I want to add to this discussion some empirical data coming from AI chess, based on the arXiv preprint Assessing Game Balance with AlphaZero: Exploring Alternative Rule Sets in Chess (2020) by Nenad Tomašev, Ulrich Paquet, Demis Hassabis and Vladimir ...


-2

If stalemate were a loss for the player who couldn't move, a good player with the white pieces would be able to beat even the best possible player with the black pieces. The only reason that White's advantage isn't decisive is that black has substantial opportunities to steer the game into positions where White would be able to stalemate Black, but not able ...


2

I thought of a weird line of reasoning for which a stalemate would be considered a loss for the attacking player (who causes the stalemate), because at lower levels it is caused by a blunder by the attacker and at higher levels it means the defender has outmaneuvered the attacker to force a stalemate. But it doesn't feel quite right to call it a loss when ...


2

I would argue that a stalemate can offer as decisive an outcome as a checkmate, and a more decisive outcome than a draw. Chess is like a military battle in that it requires strategy and tactics, and has many interesting nuances like sacrifices, pins, and so forth which have real life correspondents. Of course the nice thing about chess is that the battle ...


21

Absolutely not. Making stalemate a win would be a sure way to make for less interesting chess. Any rule change which makes it easier to convert a small material advantage to a win, will ipso facto make it less attractive to sacrifice material for attacking chances. One of the things that makes gambits playable is the fact that, if the attack fails, the ...


7

If stalemates were wins chess would be simpler and therefore less interesting to me. Many tense struggles would become simple wins. Many "study-like" endings would become trivial. Would these be replaced with more hard-fought middle games? Perhaps. bailing out to drawn ending would be less common I suppose. Endings and Transition to endings are ...


6

More decisive games? Certainly. But that does make it a better game? (I.E. is it a satisfactory solution to the problem of high drawrate?) Stalemates can occur in positions which are not vastly advantageous endgames but more or less equal, just like checkmates can. But the point of chess is to look for checkmates. Having to watch out for stalemates in the ...


0

I was unable to locate a question in the main text, so I'll answer the one from the title. Would there be more decisive games? - Absolutely yes, since your proposition effectively turns a lot of currently drawn positions into winning ones.


14

The game would definitely become way less interesting, as many endgames that offer a chance to keep fighting would become hopeless. There would be more games that end in a win (so yes, more decisive games), but not necessarely more attacks, as those hardly ever end in a stalemate. It's hard to make a valid prediction without trying it out, but it's ...


3

Nice question. Here's a slight variant of your construction which saves one move. The final position is almost the same, but there's a pawn transferred from a4 to e5 (which saves one pawn move). [Title "Proof Game In 46.0 Moves"] [FEN ""] 1. a3 Nc6 2. Ra2 Na5 3. Ra1 Nb3 4. Ra2 Na1 5. Nh3 Nf6 6. Ng5 Nd5 7. Nc3 e5 8. Nb5 Nc3 9. Nd4 Nb1 10. ...


Top 50 recent answers are included