VIVA STALEMATE!
<Couldn't you just rule that stalemate
was a loss for the stalemated player?
That would make a lot of K+P/K endgames
into wins for the player with the pawn.> -- Nick Wedd
THE CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 234).
How many players would dare to risk gambits in the opening or embark
on sacrificial attacks if there were no hope of salvation in the
endgame?
You're a pawn up! Trade down! Brute force invariably would decide the
issue.
We can't destroy chess to save it. Many beautiful, subtle themes
would vanish without stalemate as a saving resource. And those who get
careless no longer would be punished for letting the underdog escape
with
a surprising draw.
Nick Wedd wrote:
> In message
> <5efd3a61-60a0-487b-a4ed-e6da8d6a08b0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "marksteere@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <marksteere@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>
> >It's not hard to create a version of Chess without so many draws at
> >the top level. You could use a 10x10 board for example and add a few
> >more pieces. The game tree would be much more complex, perfect play
> >would be much more difficult to approximate, and the draw rate would
> >be dramatically reduced.
>
> Would you need to go that far? Couldn't you just rule that stalemate
> was a loss for the stalemated player? That would make a lot of K+P/K
> endgames into wins for the player with the pawn.
>
> Nick
> --
> Nick Wedd nick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
