[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>I asked my chess playing partner who said,
'I do not feel like a winner if I have fewer pieces and am unable to
move. If we were to have an equal number of pieces, then I feel it would
be a draw.'</P>
<P>Would you agree to this?</P>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>I agree with the first part, because a player who can't move is either stalemated (as in this case) or checkmated (in many other cases), and neither condition makes a player a winner. But I disagree with the second part. First, the number of pieces is not an adequate measure of material. One player could have more material even if both players have the same number of pieces. For example, one player might exchange a Knight for a Queen and so be ahead materially. But even with equally powerful forces on each side, one player might have a better position, which could lead him to checkmate his opponent and win the game. Also, it is quite possible for someone who is behind materially, as your opponent was, to still win or draw a game. All that matters in the end is what you do with your pieces, not what you could have done with them if you had played differently.</P>
It is possible to stalemate an opponent who has more pieces on the board than you have. For example, consider the drawn endgame where White has a King on 'c1' and Black has a King on 'a1' and a Pawn on 'a3'. If Black moves his Pawn a3-a2 and White moves his King c1-c2, then the game has ended in stalemate.
Thank you this is interesting. I asked my chess playing partner who said, 'I do not feel like a winner if I have fewer pieces and am unable to move. If we were to have an equal number of pieces, then I feel it would be a draw.' Would you agree to this?
'I think in this instance and only in this instance should you add all the points of pieces captured in order to determine the winner.' John, you could make a case that the chess variant played that way would be better than Chess, and certainly you and your opponent have the right to play that way if you like. The only caution I would advise is that, since those are not the standard rules of Chess, you'd better make sure you and your opponent both agree to those rules before you start, or else someone might end up with hard feelings after the game is over. (This reminds me of the aftermath of the 2000 election ...)
Doug, Technically, you might be right. But are those conditions applicable to each and every game? Resignation could be considered merely a recognition by that player of the potential of eventual checkmate.
I appreciate all your comments. I think in this instance and only in this instance should you add all the points of pieces captured in order to determine the winner. Again, this instance being where the state of play is one whereby your opponent is not currently in check but it is their move. However, they cannot successfuly make a move without being in check.
Larry,<br>
Technically, there are other ways to win. For example, your opponent could resign, run out of time, or be declared the loser by the arbiter.
This would be a great question to ask the FIDE: Why is checkmate the only win condition in Chess and all else are draws? I'm sure that there was a great debate about this during the adoption of the Mad Queen variant as their advocated game. So there ought be a large amount of data to back up these decisions. (Or the decision could have been a form of simplication, one win condition only and all else resulting in un-decided games.)
It's perfectly fair to make stalemate a draw, and it makes Chess a more interesting game, because it gives someone who may have lost any chance of winning something to still fight for. I'm sure the rule that stalemate is a draw is in Chess because it makes it a better game and not by the mere arbitrariness of chance.
Thank you for your prompt response but that seems really unfair. You've captured all your oppoenents pieces etc.. Its like you've immobilised their King or you've taken their King hostage! I guess laws are laws. What do you think...?
No, you are not the winner. When the only moves available to your opponent would put him in check, he has no legal move, and this is what is called stalemate. In Chess, stalemate is a draw.
Please can you help me? To set the scene, if you clearly have captured almost all your opponents pieces but the state of play is one whereby it is your opponents move, and they are not currently in check. However, they cannot successfuly make a move without being in check. To this end, I would like to know if you are the winner if the only move your player can make will result in check? RSVP....JOHN
12 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.