Nice! I was trying to construct something similar but it didn't occur to me to do it on the 8th rank instead of the 1st; that makes it a lot easier to come up with a position that can be arrived at legally.

Whether stalemate is logical depends on whether you think of the rules of chess as being

1) Checkmate ends the game, and moving into check is illegal. It makes sense here that if the game can't continue it is declared a draw.
or
2) Our rules are actually a two-ply shortcut for a virtual ruleset in which capturing a king ends the game. In this case the prohibition against moving into check is just for your own good, so you don't lose the game next move. In this case it makes sense that a player with no other legal moves would have to move his king into check, thus losing the game next move when his opponent captured it.

I can't offhand construct a stalemate position in which the player to move can't even move into check, but I'd argue that is such a position exists, it should be a draw even in an option 2 ruleset.

I would be surprised if chess didn't originally evolve from an option 2 ruleset, but of course those aren't the rules we use now.

GeneM wrote on 07/07/12 at 17:16:49:


Partially agreed. Yes, a minor material advantage will have more impact now that all K+P vs K positions are won (with the one exception Ka7, Pa6 vs Kc7), but so will other kinds of advantages. The reason: when a positional advantage is exploited in the best way, it will often lead to a material advantage. In general, all advantages will have increased impact, but I suppose a material advantage will feel the largest increase.

GeneM wrote on 07/07/12 at 17:16:49:


Agreed.

GeneM wrote on 07/07/12 at 17:16:49:


Hmm. Not sure about this one. I imagine pawn endgames will be shorter because many otherwise complicated positions will be resignable, while other endgames will be longer. The question is, which endgames would be played to the end, while they will not be played to the end by today's rules? I can think of some examples:

- Most endgames where one side is a pawn up will give increased winning chances. However, most people would play these endgames to the end anyway, even if they know the position is drawn.
- Minor piece endings will perhaps feel the largest change, as now you will have to calculate whether the defending side can safely reduce it to K+minor piece vs K.
- Rook vs bishop will be quite a lot more complicated since the defending king can no longer run to a safe corner. But the pure R vs B is not reached that often, and with pawns on the board in addition, the stronger side will usually play on for a long time anyway.
- Rook and bishop versus rook will have increased winning chances as the 2nd rank defense no longer works. But that endgame rarely occurs, and is usually played to the end anyway.

I am sure there are more examples, and I am unsure about the overall impact on the length of games. Some endgames will be more interesting, some will be less interesting. The only thing we can say for sure is that the superior side will have increased winning chances.

I fully agree with the article that stalemate is illogical, and I always have a hard time explaining that rule to others. But I am ambivalent to changing the rule. I dislike the impact a rule change will have on pawn endgames, where many beautiful manoeuvres will now be pointless.

The article lists 9 reasons to change the stalemate rule. I can agree with reason 1-8, but I disagree with reason 9:

Quote:


Some stalemates are the result of the defending side sacrificing his last pieces in a beautiful way. On the other hand, if the superior side forces a stalemate, it must mean that the defending side is either almost out of pieces or very tied up to begin with, and it is almost certain that the stalemated king has a material disadvantage. It is hard to imagine a position where White sacrifices one or more pieces in order to stalemate Black, and that there was no other way to win.