Stalemate rules mean that a player in a heavily disadvantaged position still has the opportunity to play for a draw, whether that comes from their own clever play or a mistake from their opponent (what happened in the comic).
If the goal is to just play a game with a clear winner and loser, there’s no benefit at all.
But that isn’t what chess is. It’s more like a strategy game where there are multiple outcomes that would reflect degrees of skill and thinking.
If you’re already behind, but you can pull off a stalemate, that’s hard. In some ways, it’s harder than winning in the first place. It means that you and the other player are well matched. I’ve heard serious players rattle on about difficult draws the way football (both types) fans will talk about decisive victories of their favorite team. They’ll pick the moves apart and use those moves and tactics in their own games.
I was never a serious chess player at all. I simply don’t have the willingness to study it the way you have to to be really good at it. It felt too derivative for my preferences. But I can still remember more of my close games and draws than I can my wins because it took more of the kind of gameplay I enjoy, where you’re kinda winging it and calculating based on your own way of thinking instead of relying on a body of research and theory.
Mind you, there’s nothing wrong with that at all. The folks that play high level chess are amazing, and I fully respect the work they put into grokking chess at that level. I’m just saying that isn’t fun for me, and I play board games of any type for fun and companionship, not personal improvement or a sense of competitiveness.
Which, going back, is why I can recall my draws better than my wins or losses. They were me having fun and managing to hang with smarter, better players by dint of sinking into the play of it.
But when one of those players pulls off a draw from disadvantage? That’s fucking art, it’s mastery of a complicated but finite set of possibilities.
I don’t know anything about chess but I imagine one benefit would be to give the losing player one last opportunity to avoid a loss by being strategic and give the winning player the need to still think about their moves instead of just randomly moving around since they know they will win otherwise.
How is it a draw is both black bishop and king are still playing? Queen moves back, white king moves anywhere it wants and for good sake do a proper check mate
I don’t get it
Wrong move, stalemate (white has no legal moves). White gets off with a draw.
Queen moves into a space that stops king from moving as you cannot move into a check. It’s a forced draw.
What’s the benefit to the game of this being a draw instead of an obvious loss to white?
Stalemate rules mean that a player in a heavily disadvantaged position still has the opportunity to play for a draw, whether that comes from their own clever play or a mistake from their opponent (what happened in the comic).
Depends.
If the goal is to just play a game with a clear winner and loser, there’s no benefit at all.
But that isn’t what chess is. It’s more like a strategy game where there are multiple outcomes that would reflect degrees of skill and thinking.
If you’re already behind, but you can pull off a stalemate, that’s hard. In some ways, it’s harder than winning in the first place. It means that you and the other player are well matched. I’ve heard serious players rattle on about difficult draws the way football (both types) fans will talk about decisive victories of their favorite team. They’ll pick the moves apart and use those moves and tactics in their own games.
I was never a serious chess player at all. I simply don’t have the willingness to study it the way you have to to be really good at it. It felt too derivative for my preferences. But I can still remember more of my close games and draws than I can my wins because it took more of the kind of gameplay I enjoy, where you’re kinda winging it and calculating based on your own way of thinking instead of relying on a body of research and theory.
Mind you, there’s nothing wrong with that at all. The folks that play high level chess are amazing, and I fully respect the work they put into grokking chess at that level. I’m just saying that isn’t fun for me, and I play board games of any type for fun and companionship, not personal improvement or a sense of competitiveness.
Which, going back, is why I can recall my draws better than my wins or losses. They were me having fun and managing to hang with smarter, better players by dint of sinking into the play of it.
But when one of those players pulls off a draw from disadvantage? That’s fucking art, it’s mastery of a complicated but finite set of possibilities.
Thanks for the word grokking.
You and Elon can compare notes about how much you love the idea.
?
I don’t know anything about chess but I imagine one benefit would be to give the losing player one last opportunity to avoid a loss by being strategic and give the winning player the need to still think about their moves instead of just randomly moving around since they know they will win otherwise.
In a competitive setting, it would mean that both players get 0.5 points instead of white getting 0 and black getting 1 points.
“You didn’t win correctly.” - Chess (The original Dark Souls-themed tactical grid-based roguelike war game)
They’ll fix it in chess 2.
They didn’t.
David Sirlin actually made chess 2 years ago, you can go try out its different armies
Na the last patch to chess was 400 years ago. I don’t think it is being actively developed anymore.
Or in one of the paid dlcs.
It forces players to focus on the game no matter how much of an advantage they have.
This + no other piece is allowed to move
How is it a draw is both black bishop and king are still playing? Queen moves back, white king moves anywhere it wants and for good sake do a proper check mate
An I over analysing?
How can the queen move back when it’s the white king’s turn and he can’t move
Huh? I thought having no valid moves that wouldn’t lead to the king’s death was a loss. How DO you lose then?
Have to put him in check, while also preventing him from moving into another spot that could also put him into check.
This would likely have been a stalemate anyway.
How come? I’m not very good at chess personally but I was under the impression that queen-bishop-king was generally sufficient to force a mate.
Somehow I didn’t even register the existence of the bishop. It’s possible to mate with just king and queen, but more pieces the better.
It’s been a long time since I played, but king+queen+bishop should be pretty achievable?
It is, king and queen is all you need
King and queen is fully sufficient to checkmate
I said likely. I know it’s sufficient, but it’s not inevitable.
It is inevitable, there’s no maybe about it
It’s possible to stalemate, too.
That would be the case if the king was currently in check, but as he’s currently on a safe space then it’s stalemate