cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/25112863
Source unknown, some sites assign it to Oppressive Silence comics by Ethan Vincent. But that website in the corner is shady
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)
AnarchyChess
6257 readers
1 users here now
Holy hell
Other chess communities:
!Chess@lemmy.ml
!chessbeginners@sh.itjust.works
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Stupidest rule in chess.
It almost never happens randomly, it has to be forced by the losing player and it's not easy to do it so I think it's a valid way of saving the game.
The first part of your comment doesn't justify the second part. But it also isn't true that it rarely happens randomly. It rarely happens randomly in high-ranked games. Bad rules like stalemate have a much stronger effect on low ranked games, which is what most people play.
Why
Without the stalemate rule then there's not much any point in continuing to play once you're in a poor enough position. You'd literally be wasting both players times waiting in vain for your opponent to irrecoverably blunder hard enough to turn the match, which may be impossible if you're out of enough pieces.
With the stalemate rule although you may no longer be able to win, you can still do something so your final outcome is better than a loss. The losing player still has a reason to keep playing. The game is overall more interesting to play and watch by having the stalemate rule than it would be without.
I don't agree. I think the game is more interesting if it's a new game after the other won
Ratings matter, though. A stalemate means your rating doesn't decrease as much as it would have if you'd lost, and you get to take some of your opponent's rating in the process.