Wesley So reacts on "Stalemate SHOULD be a win"

[@JamesJoyce12]

Wes desperately trying not to go with his first and his truest reaction: "No - that is stupid - Rensch is an idiot"

[@worker-wf2em]

Win by checkmate = 3.68 Win by resignation = 3.157 Win by arbiter declaration = 2.007 Draw by stalemate = 1.84 to the player sitting closest to a window, 1.70 to his opponent Draw by agreement = 2 vouchers 15% off next car service Draw by three-fold repetition = 1 point + lovely assortment of bath salts That simple

[@andretirta9801]

suggestion: draw by stalemate 0.69

[@bludermate38]

Then the opponent will resign if he knows he is going to get checkmated just to give less points to the opponent

[@Krmpfpks]

@@bludermate38 but then the player doesnt get the car service voucher. See? Its perfectly balanced.

[@Kimdk87]

Amazing comment 😄

[@LiteralCats]

There's gonna be a lot of windows in that tournament

[@mayurrathod9225]

"I get very depressed when I get lots of drugs" - Wesley KZbin captions are hilarious 😂

[@rahulganeshpenujuri7302]

I was looking for this comment🤣🤣🤣

[@muriloamorim2731]

Lmao thanks for that 😂

[@petercohen3966]

lmao 1:40

[@rakki2798]

In other news, Eric Rosen quits chess

[@AyrtonTwigg]

If stalemate isn't a draw, then there would never be a reason to underpromote to a bishop or rook; you'd just choose queen.

[@Neelinmact]

They are going for a stalemate because they know they would loose otherwise

[@Neelinmact]

Btw some positions are winning because of under promotion

[@ppmpyae1152]

@@Neelinmact The only position I can think of is if you should not check the king which is like.... Can I get an example? Really interested

[@x4wi483]

underpromoting to knight to give a check would be a reason

[@Neelinmact]

@@ppmpyae1152 levon aronian vs Wesley so new chess classic 27th April 2021

[@RogerAckroid]

If we made stalemate a win, almost all endgames where you're 1 pawn up would be won. It would spoil most of the endgames and would make the games finish faster with less resistance by the winning side. I don't like that.

[@JackMott]

But perhaps people would avoid 1 pawn up end games as a result via more exciting play? My elo is way too low to infer how this would play out!

[@Neelinmact]

As they should since they are one pawn up

[@rambo2667]

@@Neelinmact All thunks like opp color bishops draws or rook endgames f and g will die down. You need to get your to atleast 1000 before you open your mouth

[@randombutspecific]

Im ok with that, the game would be marginally more exciting and have more victories. Logically the idea of a stalemate just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t see why the king gets some special protection from harming itself, it should be allowed to go to squares where it can be captured.

[@Neelinmact]

@@rambo2667 those are not stalemates ,, there are positions where a player gets a draw even when he is a piece up or multiple pawns up ,,

[@viniciuslongo4622]

In my opinion, the pointing system should be similar to soccer: 3 points for a victory, 1 point for draws, 0 points for a loss

[@bubsadoozy]

One issue I could see that creating is the problem that color is more significant. Sam Shankland recently complained that in his last 8 events he had an extra black game. I think the truth is that draws are a problem ONLY if they are short, done between countrymen, etc (not a fighting draw) and there are those who moronically think ANY draw is boring who bring far more attention to this issue than it deserves.

[@mika274]

2 points for win and half for draw is better. It makes the gap smaller and achievable

[@shreyassaireddy9826]

@@mika274 Dude, this is a 4:1 ratio which is worse than a 3:1 .

[@pnarimani6055]

@@shreyassaireddy9826 We don't understand ratio and multiplications around here. We can only do + and -.

[@arcadeplayer9804]

@@mika274 then black will play berlin all the way 😴

[@ilusoriob]

Chess960 for the win.

[@AGILISFPV]

Dina is so gorgeous!

[@shoegazingguy3155]

The way she looks at him is nice

[@mikeholland6750]

she looks at everyone like that. shes got a gaze to her thats very idk the word even. very powerful though ill say that

[@hankschrader5507]

@@mikeholland6750 she has large eyes, also, she doesn’t close them when smiling. That’s it. I personally find large eyes on a woman very attractive, usually, not saying I’m particularly attracted to her or anything.

[@ishanjoshi1350]

Changing what stalemate implies in modern chess is basically creating another game.(and one could argue that its reverting to rules of older chess) It's one of the most foundational rules in chess which will invalidate a lot of puzzles and studies and understanding of chess if done away with.

[@blaiseskoletsky7069]

YO SAME PROFILE!

[@MetalShadow3142]

@@blaiseskoletsky7069 I'm entering a fugue state

[@bobon123]

Honestly it would change quite much at the very low level, where stalemate can happen by mistake, and for puzzles. But there would be very few endings where the rule would change anything at the high level, where you just go by theory, other than the need to study the needed changes to few endgames. As WS is mentioning, it would change something probably once or twice per tournament.

[@johnsavard7583]

While I personally advocate splitting the points 3/5 - 2/5 for a stalemate as a useful change to Chess - the idea being that since the reward for stalemate is only 1/5 of that for checkmate, players are still incentivized not to blunder a checkmate into a stalemate - I agree that it isn't really meaningful to say that stalemate "should" be a win, even though it may seem that way to beginning players. Making stalemate a draw had a purpose, which was to make the endgame more challenging.

[@bobon123]

@@johnsavard7583 the reward of a stalemate would be 1/10, not 1/5 (at least in a round robin where you care for your own points).

[@Viknikd]

Anchor is very Jolly, she enjoys taking interviews

[@Lasselucidora]

I love So. He is so brutal and aggressive.

[@stopwritingthatreplyjohnat6638]

You're kidding right?

[@ParleLeVu]

@@stopwritingthatreplyjohnat6638 He is, indeed, kidding.

[@WeCube1898]

Probably the tamest Tiger out there, but sometimes he can turn into a Wolf.

[@1v0Edits]

in the philippines we have a rule when i was doing tournaments in school where if only the opponent's king in the board is left, the game must be finished in 16 moves or it will result in stalemate no matter how many checks or pieces you have which sucks for the other side especially with the bishop/knight checkmate tactic

[@KingOfAllBlunders]

Keep it up Wesley So. Mad love and support from the USA

[@aconsideredmoment]

Siege warfare. A king that cannot move is lost.

[@joshualee1595]

then when we start both sides are already lost....

[@vikramkrishnan6414]

This is actually the rule in Chaturanga: If you bare the king (i.e. no pieces left for the other side) or if the opposing side has no legal moves, you win

[@JKTG123]

what is the purpose or value of a king if will not be able to give order to their official, let just wait to concede not lost that is the beauty of free will, there's always hope even if you are in prison for example.

[@gaBBarSlnGh]

She is so straight forward. I like her.

[@Roger-nk5ug]

the interviewer's expressions are very funny to me! Half the time it looks like she's flirting with the players. I think she does a great job, by the way.

[@lebronjamesharden3958]

The Filipino Pride of Chess!!!

[@JackMott]

6/10 is an interesting compromise!

[@maniniescobar244]

I got pissed when I run out of time and my opponent only had a knight but because I had a bishop, I lost. I consider situations like this very unfair

[@bobing1752]

Play with increment

[@LunnarisLP]

Actually something interesting would maybe be if pawns couldnt move 2 steps forward, or you couldn't castle since it would mean that developing minor pieces earlier would be more preferable vs. pushing your pawns to the center, and obviously a king in the middle would make for more interesting games vs. him being so well protected at the side with pawns you never move up, which would be impossible if the king couldn't move away so easily as you kinda have to fight for the center of the board thus you have to expose your king a bit. I honestly think if you couldn't castle that alone would make many games so much better.

[@wchambers3849]

Looks like she wanted to get away from him. Well played Wesley!!!

[@alextubari]

How about "skip one move" rule?

[@AyrtonTwigg]

Then whenever you need to use it, your opponent will too, making it irrelevant.

[@ParleLeVu]

As a 1200 player, I would love stalemates not being possible. This way I can bruteforce material wins into true wins. Absolutely beautiful. Of course, this takes some skill out of the game, and that's why I'm happy with it, because I am too lazy to actually put in an effort into improving. So, for anyone that actually tries to be good at chess, I'd suppose the answer would be opposite of whatever I say.

[@JimmyBoosterCrate]

ha, appreciate the honesty

[@santiagosteven6105]

I agree. Stalemate should be a win 👏

[@sylvesteruchia5263]

😂 😂 😂 Stalemate is like "well you're opponent can't move twice. But you were screwed" it's a technicality.

[@Neelinmact]

Absolutely agree ,, stalemate should be win

[@bergfe]

Stalemates keep the beauty of saving some endgames with creativity. Changing this, is almost impossible to play even wrong colored bishop ending. It will make chess boring.

[@xuweimarom10]

Makes Sense!!

[@hosiahjones]

I agree! Creating stalemate from a losing position is a very difficult skill to master and should be considered a win!

[@kidisthing]

Bruh that is not the topic it's opposite of what you told

[@mememanfresh]

maybe in an upsidown world

[@halfaheartbongobongo]

Here's an idea which is probably too much, but which might be fun - allow pawns to promote earlier. For instance, maybe if they reach the second/seventh rank they can be "promoted" to a minor piece.

[@jovramos3494]

Technically stalemate is not a draw because if someone didnt make a move because there is no safe square for the king his or her time is loosing even though its not a checkmate but time is important considering that there was so many games that the winning player was lost because his or her time was run out.

[@davidgunter2355]

I think statemate should be 63% of the win.

[@bot1024]

For which player, though?

[@novicelifts5197]

@@bot1024 for the one who stalemted, so the one who's king has no more legal movement

[@officialspock]

Dina so freaking hot!!!

[@Deucely]

Ok, what if, hear me out, what if, we didn't have to move on our turn, you could just pass without a move, which would both remove stalemate and zugzwang. It just makes sense, just because it's your turn to play, you don't have to move. And if we both choose not to move then it's a draw.

[@jacobfriedman3746]

However that eliminates all situations in which zugzwang is played intentionally. So if I were to find a brilliant tactic that forced zugzwang in my favor, that is a draw according to the rule.

[@Deucely]

@@jacobfriedman3746 no it isn't, the player in zug doesn't play which nets you one tempo and you carry on with the attack, it's only a draw if you use it to draw because you are behind. edit: and you can keep them in zug for however many moves to setup, it's interesting to think about.

[@jacobfriedman3746]

I see what your saying, that would be very interesting. I meant to say a tactic which involved double zugzwang.

[@Deucely]

@@jacobfriedman3746 yeah I figured, I had to look it up once more to be sure I didn't use the term incorrectly ^^

[@andreib4226]

You realize that would mean even more draws, right? For example, in any 1 pawn endgame, you'd just park the king on the promotion square and be safe. Same for zugzwang... without it, all of those endgames would be drawn. You wouldn't even be able to win rook+king vs king...

[@daveray5655]

The objective of the game should be to capture the king. That would make stalemate irrelevant. I would be okay with that change.

[@sandrinjoy]

but if you look realistically, if a player has no moves, he should resign, that also makes some sense.

[@daveray5655]

@@tusharmuraliold more like the king is physically removed of the board.

[@tomatoisnotafruit5670]

@@daveray5655 but in stale mate you can't remove the king of the board, cause you have no piece attacking him, so that's why it's not loss.

[@daveray5655]

@@tomatoisnotafruit5670 I'm aware of stalemate, to clarify, my comment is about why I think the objective of the game should be changed. Things like check and such become irrelevant with my edit.

[@vikramkrishnan6414]

In Chaturanga, Stalemate and baring the king are both wins

[@alexandergawrilow6255]

0:48 The Queen should definetly get nerfed!

[@WeThin]

Since chess is an esport already anyway, they should introduce a seasonal openings format where a certain subset of openings are prescribed on a seasonal basis. This can be used to decrease chance of draws by picking less drawish openings, or adding variety and excitement to the game in other ways. I like this idea because it doesn't affect the integrity of the game itself, just the way that players interact with it.

[@matthijsklomp]

Three points for a win, two for stalemate and one for a draw would make players try more to win. This has worked well in other sports, so why not try it in chess?

[@Atheist1306]

If stalemate will be considered as a win,then XQC will dethrone Magnus

[@gauravjha8938]

Magnus : How does a knight move...?

[@gauravjha8938]

Wesley looks like Robin & Dina like Catwoman...

[@gauravjha8938]

@@nicbentulan Wouldn't that be some awesomeness to behold...??

[@pedrochalaco1]

Stalemate steven!

[@08nadz20]

but in reality a king that can’t move is essentially loss

[@tomatoisnotafruit5670]

that depends on how long he can't move for, I mean surely the king can sit in his fortress for a while before he is in trouble, So then you have to keep the opponent in stale mate for x amount of moves before you get the win.

[@08nadz20]

@@tomatoisnotafruit5670 in reality a king that can’t move when it is time for him to make a move is essentially loss

[@CapAnson12345]

That's stupid. It would complete overhaul endgames and make a lot of them meaningless.

[@thom_yoker]

a win for who though?

[@codeengineer10]

Wesely gets depressed when he gets lots of drugs.. True

[@ghostproxy11]

Lol

[@philipstevenson5166]

He prefers to have one.

[@81freewilly]

stalemate Can't be a win. A dead king has lost his queen, kingdom and his people and he cant revive his kingdom by any means but a stalemate is something like the king has survived in the warzone, but pushed to the corner, but not dead yet, he can revive his kingdom and find a new queen and build an army.

[@Theo0x89]

By the same logic, checkmate can't be a win because the king is not dead when the game ends.

[@diarenee9012]

@@Theo0x89 that doesn't make sense

[@Theo0x89]

@@diarenee9012 What makes no sense? The rules of chess say that the game ends before the king is captured. That's true for checkmate and for stalemate. Checkmate means the king would be captured on the next move. The same is true for all practically relevant stalemates.

[@novicelifts5197]

@@Theo0x89 when u have checkmate the king is dead on the next move of your oppenent either way. it doesn't make sense to continue just to 'symbolically' kill the king

[@Theo0x89]

@@novicelifts5197 Right, the point is that the same is true for almost all stalemates. If the game continued, the king would be under attack and captured on the next move.

[@andrewleliveld3537]

Stalemate as a win would ruin much of the exciting, aggressive play. Gambits and sacrifices are already seldom justified and without stalemates to fall back on, gambit openings would basically die. It would be way too risky to sacrifice even 1 pawn as all endings up a pawn would win.

[@Ddvgh1]

I am still adamant that checkmate should NOT be the win, capturing the king should be, therefore stalemates always result in wins for the player who managed to back his opponent into that position

[@tomatoisnotafruit5670]

If you stalemate the king, you can't capture him, it's the opponents move and he has no legal move and you didn't capture his king, thus stalemate, gg.

[@Ddvgh1]

@@tomatoisnotafruit5670 okay, then let’s apply that logic to any case of zugzwang. Why is it you’re allowed to not move in a stalemate, but are forced to move in other cases when all moves are bad. If the goal of chess is truly to capture the king, then why must the game stop the move before?

[@saxy1player]

Checkmate means the king cannot escape being captured on the next turn ;)

[@Theo0x89]

_"therefore stalemates always result in wins"_ Technically, there still could be positions with no legal moves, even if we allow the king putting himself in check. I don't think they are of any practical relevance, though.

[@Ddvgh1]

@@saxy1player so why should not moving only be allowed in the specific scenario where it prevents immediate capture, but you still have to move even if it leads to mate in 2 or 3?

[@names6494]

"w"esley "s"o

[@saswatparida3989]

in sub title it is showing drugs instead of draws so accordingly wesely gets depressed by a lot of drugs

[@camaleonsacor1618]

What is her name? how can she be that cute?

[@StephenIC]

You need to think about chess from the absolute basics. Why can't you move your king into check? Because if you did, your king would be captured on the theoretical next move. Checkmate literally means no matter what the king does, he's dead next turn (except we don't play it out). So in stalemate, the king's only option is to walk into being captured next turn, so you should lose. All that being said, I understand wanting to keep the game consistent with what it has always been.

[@postmasterpez]

Not always...

[@vvaallddeess]

It could mean that your pieces can not move. In a theoretical manner, imagine your king surrounded by your own pawns, and your most advanced pawns being blocked by the enemy pawns.

[@Patralgan]

Maybe change rules so that a win is 2 points (0 for loss) and win by stalemate is 1½ points (½ points for stalematee). Draw would be worth of 1 point. I wouldn't be against ruling stalemate as a full win either.

[@fdr3898]

win = 1 stalemating = 0.75 draw = 0.5 getting stalemated = 0.25 loss = 0 that simple

[@ParleLeVu]

Nice, you get a congratulatory taco for that answer. Mui bien!

[@kristiankrastanov5995]

stalemating = 0.5 getting stalemated = 0.5

[@fdr3898]

@@kristiankrastanov5995 Well that's a rather dull idea, but lucky for you it's the status quo.

[@randominternet5586]

I like this idea

[@Deucely]

They should definitely make more chess variants like one where pawns can go back or one where you can take your own pieces or one where you can swap pieces that are next to each other, and so on, it just creates a new playground that isn't known by anyone, other than the core principles of chess. They should also seriously consider an easy version of chess, something with a color overlay that show you what squares each pieces are attacking/defending, so you blunder a lot less and it's a lot easier to learn fundamentals.

[@DJUwU]

I understand why...but also its the reason why I think Chess is a flawed game. "Go" is better...but also has its downsides/flaws too. In the end...chess is already too hard for a lot of people to enjoy. "Go" is too hard for even most chess players to enjoy. I guess you can't really create the perfect game...and force people to play it. They have to learn about their own lives rather than a "perfect game"...

[@clutchflutie8750]

what was that look at the end of the interview by Dina or whoever that is. It was almost like a scoff.

[@LuisFernando-yd3mx]

I saw it too. She must think she is better or cooler than the super GMs. She might be a great women's GM but her interviews are quite basic in skill level imo.

[@leftenanalim]

@@LuisFernando-yd3mx What?

[@LuisFernando-yd3mx]

@@leftenanalim Watch the video. She rolls her eyes and gives a smirk in the last seconds when she turns away from So.

[@leftenanalim]

@@LuisFernando-yd3mx That doesn't look like a smirk at all. Or at least not one that was meant to be intentional to offend others. I've been with lots of people and they all have different personalities and expression. Sometimes it is weird yes, but especially when something is not clear, it is very bold and naive to assume and spread negativity about one's personality.

[@LuisFernando-yd3mx]

@@leftenanalim Of course everything is open to interpretation as no one is a mind reader. But I just agreed with the original commenter on this thread that believed she scoffed. So I guess I'm not the only one who interprets that her reaction in this interview was in this way.

[@Luka-zr1kq]

Man this women is so fine

[@Philip8888888]

Stalemate should be a win for the side with less material!

[@geoffreyvanwyk4588]

Crazy House. Not Chess 960. It sucks.

[@320speed]

He's right tho.

[@cheburashkacheburashka4257]

They need to encourage and reward people for playing for a win. Scrap the 0.5 bullshit. You win you get 1 point otherwise 0. Having 0.5 for draw means 2 draws equals a win which is ridiculous...

[@cdrcls]

or 3 for win, 1 for draw and 0 for loss. I don't think loss and draw should be the same. You can both have a great game without any mistakes and you get the same amount of points as someone who just gets scholars mated? thats also a bad way to do the points

[@cheburashkacheburashka4257]

@@cdrcls the problem with this is that people will still play for draw knowing that they are being rewarded for it. For example, the lowest rated guy will face Magnus and knowing he is likely to lose he will play conservatively to get the maximum reward he thinks he can get +1 point. Whereas, when he faces the second lowest rated he will play for the win to try and get +3. If there is 0 for draw he will know there is nothing to lose so he will go all out crazy even against Magnus

[@viniciuslongo4622]

​@@cheburashkacheburashka4257 well you should obviously be rewarded if you are able to draw against a stronger player. And at the top level, it would be ridiculous not to get any points draws, it's not like these guys don't play for a win, there are a lot of draws simply because they are extremely precise, so it's difficult to exploit or find opponents mistakes. The w:3 d:1 l:0 system would make much more sense in my eyes

[@f_sg]

Dina is so hot

[@DeeEast]

Win = 2 Stalemate your opponent: 0.75 Draw: 0.5 Get stalemated: 0.25 Loss: 0

[@ZeCroiSSanT950]

Draw = stalemate = 0.333333 Win = 1 Loss = 0 Very simple.

[@geekynerd7346]

A good player will not have a draw by stalemate. Allowing a stalemate is a blunder. Stalemates should not be wins

[@mikeholland6750]

thats not true at all. there are plenty of positions that end in forced stalemate with perfect defensive play. sounds like youre not among the "good players" youre referencing

[@hankschrader5507]

You’re new to chess, many positions are theoretical stalemate. However, most newbies do throw away the game to a stalemate with like 3 queens.

[@geekynerd7346]

@@hankschrader5507 You are right. I threw away a good position and had a stalemate! In that case, I blundered badly

[@plasmaastronaut]

not moving into check was made a rule to stop patzers blundering a game that still had plenty of gameplay remaining. It was not meant to create a lot of drawn positions in high level games. The rule should be removed, and so stalemate would vanish.

[@ebonilha]

that's... really not it. It all derives from the single fact that we cannot capture the king during the game, which makes it way richer.

[@sameash3153]

@@ebonilha you should be able to

[@ieorlich]

nahhh.... Online chess has no problem at all, it's perfect. Board chess on the other hand has many things to fix. ''Touch move'' rule is stupid, should be ''realease/capturing the piece'' rule (like online games). And many other things related with illegal moves, etc.

[@svenniepennie4237]

So can I then just pick up a piece, move it around the board and as long as I put it back it's okay?

[@ieorlich]

@@svenniepennie4237 as long you do it immediately and don't release it or capture any piece. I don't see any problem to change mind and taking it back. Just like you do play Online chess. Also, with this people would be relaxed and never worried about saying ''j’adoube''/adjust. Even Magnus laughed at the organizer about this stupid rule in the WC.

[@deltaphi9770]

@@ieorlich I'm not a professional player by any means, just better than the average guy but I think I would get annoyed if my opponent on board chess were to cycle through multiple pieces, picking them up off the board, and then putting them back before eventually making their 'actual' move.

[@renify_]

🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭

[@monkmonk2133]

Nervous af!

[@blindfoldchessabhi]

Yo

[@xVoLxPaYnE]

Ah yeth, wethley tho.

[@xVoLxPaYnE]

@@nicbentulan ... Is that not what I said...?

[@xVoLxPaYnE]

@@nicbentulan oh lol no

[@kabayan1947]

Looks like she was attracted to Wesley,and vice versa

[@user-nf1rx]

Daniel rench is not a good chess player. why should we listen to him