|
Sub:
Explanation
Date:
Date: 10/26/2006 2:33:02 PM Mountain Daylight Time
From:
cbonilla
To:
service@Chess-poster.com
A friend of mine
Roger Quesada from Costa Rica, a Chess Player and my scholar,
does not understand or won't agree with the stalemate rule
related to the King in Chess.
He wants you to
explain why, who came out with this rule, and
what is the purpose. He says the player who
forces the opponent to a stalemate position should win since he
has no way to move at all. Could you explain to him this?
Thank you and I
congratulate you all for this page since I have written to you
before.
Greetings.
Chess-poster.com
Dear viewer,
We found the following:
History of the stalemate
rule
The stalemate rule has a somewhat
convoluted history. In the forerunners to modern Chess, such as
Shatranj, stalemate was a win for the side administering it, and
this rule persisted for a while in Chess, although when playing
for money, a win by stalemate sometimes only won half the stake.
According to H. J. R. Murray's A History of Chess (Oxford
University Press, 1913), the rule for a time in England was that
stalemate was a loss for the player administering it. The modern
rule that stalemate is a draw became universally adopted only in
the 19th century.
Assuming that Black's King
has been stalemated,
throughout history
this
stalemate has at various times been (Davidson 1949:65-66):
-
A win for White
(10th century, Arabia)
-
A half-win for
White (18th century, Spain)
-
A win for Black
(17th century, Russia and in Great Britain into the 19th century)
-
Not allowed. If
White made a move that would stalemate Black, he had to retract
it and make a different move (Eastern Asia until the early 20th
century)
-
Black forfeits a
turn to move (medieval France)
-
A draw (started
in 14th century, Italy and spread through Europe, not adopted in
England until the 19th century)
Effect of stalemate on
endgames
There have been calls to make a stalemate a win for the side
causing the stalemate. The effect of such a rule would be a
greater emphasis on the material on the board.
An extra Pawn
would be a much greater advantage than it is today, e.g. King
and Pawn versus King would always be a win unless the defending
King were able to capture the Pawn.
If stalemate were a loss for the
player unable to move, then some endgames would be affected:
-
The endgame of
King and Pawn versus King would be a win unless the Pawn can be
captured.
-
Two Knights and a
King can stalemate a King, so that ending would no longer be a
draw.
-
The drawing
techniques with a Bishop's Pawn or Rook's
Pawn on the seventh rank
with its King nearby versus a Queen would not work, because they
involve stalemate.
-
A Rook's Pawn plus
a Bishop on the color opposite the Pawn's Queening square would
be a win instead of a draw.
-
A King and Rook
versus a King and Bishop would be a win for the side with the
Rook (but not Rook versus Knight).
-
Stalemate
positions are possible with a King and lone Bishop or lone
Knight against a King.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#endnote_Davidson1949
Thank you for visiting us,
chess-poster.com
|
