Ask a Simple Question, Get a Simple Answer

hirohiigo wrote:

I'm not entirely sure of the reason behind it. You could ask the same thing about chess - why is a stalemate a draw and not a loss for the stalemated player?

It certainly keeps the game interesting.

Now that I can answer, or at least pretend to. In BattleChess, whenever a player mates another, since any mate is also a check, the checking piece takes an extra move and finishes off the king. In a stalemate, though, no chessman is checking, so none gains that privilege. The objective is to checkmate, after all, and stalemate makes that impossible. That's my take, anyway.

Oh, and was that a rhetorical question? I forget if this thread really is for just questions and not for discussions. If that's the case, then my apologies.

Thanks for the explanation, but it was a rhetorical question, yes. I understand why, in theory, stalemate exists as a draw, but I don't agree with it. Probably because I feel the objective of chesslike games should be to capture the king, not checkmate it. In stalemate, kind of like checkmate, the King has no way to avoid capture. I know in most chesslike games (Xiangqi, shogi, etc), stalemate is considered a checkmate, because after your next move you will certainly be captured.

I know it won't change just because I complain about it, but I completely disagree with chess's stalemate rule.

If you ask me, Western decorum is different from Eastern decorum, even though they're both decorum. In shogi (and xiangqi, which is less easily explained by me), the game takes so long with the drops and complicated- and slow-moving pieces that it has to speed up the game by making illegal moves result in loss, and the capture of the king a winning condition. In chess, no such things happen, so that's never necessary, and you have to win deliberately, and not because your opponent breaks a rule or leaves his king in check.

At least that's my take. Sorry if I wasted this thread with it, and I have more questions in the near future.

It's tough to give a simple answer to a simple question. But without uchi-fu-dume rule, Watanabe's historical reversal to defend the title from 0-3 to 4-3 in the Ryuo-sen last year should not have occurred.(Watanabe got the first victory of the series in the 4th game thanks to that rule. If it's legal, then Habu should have taken the title from Watanabe to drop a pawn on 2g to mate Watanabe's king at the 131st move. Please refer to the game at http://live.shogi.or.jp/ryuou/kifu_archives/kifu_21/081126.html)

Here's another one:

Q: What's the logic behind the various parts of the jishogi rule? (Like, why does less than 24 lose, etc.) I mean, I suppose not every rule has to have some hidden meaning to it, but I was thinking that it meant that if the starting setup was restored, except for the extra and/or lost pieces, it would be a matter of who (if anyone) has the advantage.

Or would this be better suited for a long thread?

@ DoubleU: I guess 24 is just a good "mid-point". Also, every non-major piece can eventually work like a Gold; that's why they all worth the same.

I'm not sure. I only know that the rule of Jishogi had not existed in the age of Shogunate in Edo era and that it was added sometime in 20th century after shogi games started to be published on newspapers.

Q: What determines the value of an amateur kyu/dan grade? My guess is that it's simply a matter of, if you can generally beat someone under circumstances that favor no player, you are at least one grade better. If no such thing happens, you are about the same grade.

All I know is that in Go, one Handicap stone determines one grade, and in physical martial arts and other Oriental arts, one grade is one belt level, or one term's curriculum.

@DoubleU: If I understand correctly, Kyu and Dan titles are awarded by clubs or associations if said club or association feels that a player has moved up a rank. I'm not entirely sure how it's determined, actually. I think in Europe it's based on ELO.