Can someone please explain why Stalemate counts as a tie

[Snickerbobble]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1208498647

I feel robbed.

[PanopticEmu]

blame the rules of chess...

[Snickerbobble]

Originally posted by AedificatorRobertus:

blame the rules of chess...

Since this game won't allow you to make a move that puts you in check, it should also not allow you to move into a stalemate, I think.. cuz this isn't fair

[PanopticEmu]

again: read the rules of chess. according to the traditional rules, you are not able to move into check. However, the inability to move causes a stalemate. It's nothing to do w/ this digital implementation of the game.
It is perfectly fair to allow a stalemate. In fact, if you cannot avoid a stalemate, you need more practice....

[Snickerbobble]

Originally posted by AedificatorRobertus:

again: read the rules of chess. according to the traditional rules, you are not able to move into check. However, the inability to move causes a stalemate. It's nothing to do w/ this digital implementation of the game.
It is perfectly fair to allow a stalemate. In fact, if you cannot avoid a stalemate, you need more practice....

Game rules can change over time, and if the other player can't move, shouldn't that mean defeat? Just like how you get someone in checkmate, where they also can't move?

[Many-Hued]

At a very basic level, to checkmate means that you are in fact attacking the king. In your vast material advantage, you don’t have a single piece that is attacking the king. That’s the difference between checkmate and stalemate. If you aren’t even attacking the king, it is just a draw.

The rook on c3, queen and light squared bishop are taking away the eight squares around the king. The knight on c8 isn’t doing anything. The queen has the e7 and d6 squares already covered. All you have to do is find a square where the knight attacks the king, and Nb6 checkmate should jump out at you! Game Won!

With the last move being the dark-squared bishop to g5, this did not further the goal of attacking the king nor taking away any more squares, either. You had the win right in your grasp, but you made a move that didn’t do anything toward the goal of checkmating the king.

You indeed were robbed, but you were the robber, too. You robbed yourself!

The goal isn’t to capture all the opponents pieces, and the more pieces you capture, the closer to stalemate you are getting. With the material advantage you had, you should go for checkmate sooner.

[The Bushman Cometh]

chess is about check-mating your opponent. a stalemate is most definitely a tie in that your opponent has prevented you from check-mating them. In essence, the game is saying while you ddin't lose, you weren't good enough to win. That's chess; don't like it? get better.

[Asq]

Be careful, if the enemy is not in check but has no legal moves it is always a stalemate. Avoid this situation and attempt to foresee this (this is a common beginner mistake). Hopefully you may never make this mistake again

[76561198330580527]

Having less pieces out on the field means you're odds of stalemating are higher. Checkmate with more pieces out.

[✫✫✫✫✫]

If it makes you feel any better, throughout the history of chess, a stalemate wasn't always considered a half-point each--There was a point in time where you would have been awarded .75 points--Remember the lesson for when you are on the "losing" side to see if you can keep your opportunites open for your opponent to make a mistake and stalemate you! A common trick you can sometimes set up is to sacrifice your rook by checking your opponent's king (square adjacent to the monarch) assuming you've been able to dupe your opponent--If the king takes your rook, there's a stalemate, and if you've really set it up well, your opponent will notice this and not take your rook and step the king elsewhere, but you check him again with the rook, and if your opponent's king can't get to safety, it will eventually become a draw by repetition of position.

Please note that there is NO SUCH RULE of "perpetual check"--It is only repetition of position.
A lot of longtime chess players are ignorant of this, so I thought I'd mention it. Another confusion about that rule is that it has NOTHING to do with check. And another confusion about that rule is that it has nothing to do with "moves"--It has to do with the position on the board (which includes which player has the move.) And one more thing about that rule: Move sequence has nothing to do with it, so if you have a position, some moves, that position again, some moves, and then that position again, you can claim a draw. Since I'm rambling on, like the 50-move draw rule (another rule that has changed over the years), the same way that a pawn move or capture "resets" the count, so too will it "reset" any positions you're keeping track of for the repetition rule. Why? Simply because if a pawn is moved, or a piece is captured, it is impossible to see a previous position again at that point.

Blah