3 ms·

> One side has to move but has no legal moves. If you run out of legal moves then that seems like an outright loss condition, no? My understanding of "stalema

> One side has to move but has no legal moves. If you run out of legal moves then that seems like an outright loss condition, no? My understanding of "stalemate" is when you can move but there's no way to actually force a win (e.g. kings chasing each other around the board). I ain't a chess expert, so maybe I'm using the wrong terminology.

seanhunter 3y ago
No. In ordinary usage "stalemate" means when people are kind of stuck and not making progress, but in chess stalemate specifically means when one side has no legal moves but is not in check. In chess that is a draw. The type of situations you're describing about are covered by four rules. 1. The threefold repetition rule: if a board position repeats 3 times either side may claim a draw. In online chess this is automatic but in over the board chess people may not always realise the position has repeated especially if there is a gap between repetitions. 2. The 50 move rule: if 50 moves pass without a pawn moving or a capture being made then it is a draw. 3. Insufficient material: if neither side has sufficient material to checkmate then it is a draw. In some rule systems [1] it has to be sufficient material to force checkmate in some it's just sufficient material to mate[2] (ie the defending side can blunder into it). So if there are no pawns and both sides just have a lone king, or it is king and knight vs king or king and bishop vs king then it's always a draw. In USCF and chess.com king and 2 knights is a draw in FIDE tournaments or on lichess it's not. King and 2 bishops on up is not a draw because you can force checkmate. 4. Draw by agreement: the two sides can agree a draw. In some tournament situations this is only allowed after a certain move but there are ways the players can deliberately go into some sort of situation which is a known theoretical draw and just repeat 3 times by tacit agreement. Including amusingly/notoriously (depending on your pov) the Carlsen/Nakamura "double bongcloud" game [3] [1] US Chess federation and chess.com in particular [2] FIDE and I think lichess [3] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/18/bongcloud-meme-opening-carlsen-nakamura https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/18/bongcloud-meme...
- eru 3y ago
  The important thing to mention: in many respects, you can pretend that in chess the objective is to capture the opposing king. But for historical reasons, the game actually tops one move before, and the king is never captured. But they also have weird rules that both (A) forbid putting your king in check, and (B) hand you a draw when you are out of legal moves. A simpler version of chess would actually play until the king is captured, and allow people to move into check. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf reports on some experiments with variants like this. Another interesting thing to try out is to allow players to capture their own pieces. Or to abolish castling.

seanhunter 3y ago

No. In ordinary usage "stalemate" means when people are kind of stuck and not making progress, but in chess stalemate specifically means when one side has no legal moves but is not in check. In chess that is a draw. The type of situations you're describing about are covered by four rules. 1. The threefold repetition rule: if a board position repeats 3 times either side may claim a draw. In online chess this is automatic but in over the board chess people may not always realise the position has repeated especially if there is a gap between repetitions. 2. The 50 move rule: if 50 moves pass without a pawn moving or a capture being made then it is a draw. 3. Insufficient material: if neither side has sufficient material to checkmate then it is a draw. In some rule systems [1] it has to be sufficient material to force checkmate in some it's just sufficient material to mate[2] (ie the defending side can blunder into it). So if there are no pawns and both sides just have a lone king, or it is king and knight vs king or king and bishop vs king then it's always a draw. In USCF and chess.com king and 2 knights is a draw in FIDE tournaments or on lichess it's not. King and 2 bishops on up is not a draw because you can force checkmate. 4. Draw by agreement: the two sides can agree a draw. In some tournament situations this is only allowed after a certain move but there are ways the players can deliberately go into some sort of situation which is a known theoretical draw and just repeat 3 times by tacit agreement. Including amusingly/notoriously (depending on your pov) the Carlsen/Nakamura "double bongcloud" game [3] [1] US Chess federation and chess.com in particular [2] FIDE and I think lichess [3] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/18/bongcloud-meme-opening-carlsen-nakamura https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/18/bongcloud-meme...

eru 3y ago
The important thing to mention: in many respects, you can pretend that in chess the objective is to capture the opposing king. But for historical reasons, the game actually tops one move before, and the king is never captured. But they also have weird rules that both (A) forbid putting your king in check, and (B) hand you a draw when you are out of legal moves. A simpler version of chess would actually play until the king is captured, and allow people to move into check. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf reports on some experiments with variants like this. Another interesting thing to try out is to allow players to capture their own pieces. Or to abolish castling.