Current Events > In chess, why is cornering an opponent so they can't move considered a stalemate

(+) Yeah! (+)

dave_is_slick posted...

Not the same. In the chess situation, the king is basically with his back against a wall with no way out. Nothing he does will get him a win or an escape. This is a win for you.

yes, but this ignores the reason for subtly and strategy in the first place.

Thats like saying a Spy still wins if he just kills his target instead. Im guessing no ones really gonna argue that a spy killing someone is the same as extracting intel.

The key take away is that your plan didnt work out. Because of that you dont lose but you also dont win.

---

When you take a piece in chess it's not called killing the piece, it's called capturing it. The goal is to capture the king of your enemies, he's still the king as long as he's holed up in his lands so you didn't win the war with a stalemate.

WizardPowers posted...

I'm asking why it doesn't count as a win for the person who trapped the other.

it's just the rules, it's like the opponent's last chance to force a draw on his last piece (the king)
and even if you still have all your pieces but doesnt have the brains to checkmate, then it's your fault

---

sounds like some participation trophy shit
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

yes, but this ignores the reason for subtly and strategy in the first place.

Thats like saying a Spy still wins if he just kills his target instead. Im guessing no ones really gonna argue that a spy killing someone is the same as extracting intel.

The key take away is that your plan didnt work out. Because of that you dont lose but you also dont win.

You keep going on about a goal but there is no "goal" in chess. I'd consider a king barricaded the exact same as captured in chess since you forced that.

---

dave_is_slick posted...

You keep going on about a goal but there is no "goal" in chess. I'd consider a king barricaded the exact same as captured in chess since you forced that.

there absolutely 100% is a goal in chess. Its to put your opponent in checkmate.

im not really sure what else to say. You can disagree on the grounds that you consider... but thats not the same as asserting there is no goal.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

there absolutely 100% is a goal in chess. Its to put your opponent in checkmate.

im not really sure what else to say. You can disagree on the grounds that you consider... but thats not the same as asserting there is no goal.

Checkmate is trapping the king. The scenario in question is still trapping the king. They're really no different.

---

A stalemate becomes a tactic for someone who cannot win to stop the other person from winning as well. If you fall for it, you don't deserve to win. It's as simple as that

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

. If you fall for it, you don't deserve to win

Why's that?

A king Being backed into a corner where he can't move and being in checkmate are pretty much exactly the same except one seems arbitrarily considered "better"

---

dave_is_slick posted...

Checkmate is trapping the king. The scenario in question is still trapping the king. They're really no different.

for semantics sake its actually capturing the king. Which is why I went the whole plan route.

Now arguing if capturing them alive is necessary is a different story. This is all just for fun anyways so its not a big deal but thats my take on why the two arent the same thing. You have a specific set goal, if you dont achieve it you dont win. Simple as that.

---

Checkmate is a scenario where the King will be captured no matter what you do. Stalemate is a scenario where the King will be captured if he does something, but not if he does nothing. So probably the logic behind the draw is that he will choose to do nothing and therefore the game can no longer advance.

WizardPowers posted...

Why's that?

A king Being backed into a corner where he can't move and being in checkmate are pretty much exactly the same except one seems arbitrarily considered "better"

a king trapped in a building is not the same as the king subdued with a swat unit pointing guns at him

---

WizardPowers posted...

Why's that?

A king Being backed into a corner where he can't move and being in checkmate are pretty much exactly the same except one seems arbitrarily considered "better"

That's like saying that a king who withdrew into his castle that you now have to lay siege to is the same as the king being in a cell in your castle. They are decidedly not the same thing.

WizardPowers posted...

He's not in his own caslte if my dudes are so close he can't move

...what do you think that a siege is? It's a king being stuck in his own castle because your dudes are so close around it that he can't move.

MT_TRAEH posted...

a king trapped in a building is not the same as the king subdued with a swat unit pointing guns at him

He is subdued though. He cannot escape.

---

WizardPowers posted...

Why's that?

A king Being backed into a corner where he can't move and being in checkmate are pretty much exactly the same except one seems arbitrarily considered "better"

You're thinking of chess pieces literally. If the king was a real person yeah sure I'd argue locking him away in alkatraz with no outside contact is not meaningfully different from arresting him by force.

But he's not. He's not even a he. It's just a game piece and the game has an objective to arrange the piece known as a king such that it will be captured. If you cannot do that, you cannot win the game.

---

Tenlaar posted...

...what do you think that a siege is? It's a king being stuck in his own castle because your dudes are so close around it that he can't move.

In both cases the enemy is in his throne room, circled around him except in one scenario it's not valid because he refuses to get off his throne


---

WizardPowers posted...

In both cases the enemy is in his throne room, circled around him except in one scenario it's not valid because he refuses to get off his throne

do you consider Weinstein killing himself the same as having him alive in custody? Same result, his body is in a cell. Right?

thats essentially what youve argued in this topic.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

do you consider Weinstein killing himself the same as having him alive in custody? Same result, his body is in a cell. Right?

thats essentially what youve argued in this topic.

If the goal is to remove him from play, it doesn't matter, no. But these real world examples are all pretty stupid

I can accept that "it's that way because it just is" I guess.

Just seemed kinda dumb from a spectator standpoint

---

AlisLandale posted...

but can you really?

Yes. My king won't be in check if I move.

dave_is_slick posted...

He is subdued though. He cannot escape.

that's the point, both scenarios tc is saying is trapping the king, but only one is considered as a win

a trapped king in a castle can still commit suicide (to prevent capture)
a king restrained by your soldiers is a win (he can be tortured for information)

---