Fair chess rules?

I really dont find two rules of chess fair. Here is one! Stalemate. When one is unable to move his king, it is similar to checkmate! Oh so similar! I think that instead of having the game end in a frustrating draw, why not treat it as a checkmate? PLease share with me.


  • 5 years ago



    Even if the king can't move, if other pieces can then the game isn't over.

    Or you may be talking about the case in which your opponent is reduced to only a king. But if you haven't bothered to attack your opponent's king, why should you be able to claim victory?

    Here's my take: Currently, stalemate is different from checkmate in that the losing player might try to force it, as one last incentive to play to avoid a loss. Stalemate is a trap for the player who misses the win, but salvation for a player who would otherwise lose, and I think that makes it a legitimate test of skill. Whether it makes thematic sense to you or me individually is a separate issue, but in terms of the legitimacy of one side's ability to try for a draw in an otherwise lost situation? There is fight in that. There is chess in that.

    What's the second rule you don't think is fair?

  • 5 years ago


    Make your own variant of chess and have fun with it, but leave chess laws as they are.

Back to Top

Post your reply: