4d ago

Chess

Source unknown, some sites assign it to Oppressive Silence comics by Ethan Vincent. But that website in the corner is shady

AnarchyChess @sopuli.xyz

EfreetSK @lemmy.world

4d ago

Chess

201 25

66 comments

I don't get it
- Queen moves into a space that stops king from moving as you cannot move into a check. It's a forced draw.
  
  What’s the benefit to the game of this being a draw instead of an obvious loss to white?
  
  This + no other piece is allowed to move
  
  Huh? I thought having no valid moves that wouldn't lead to the king's death was a loss. How DO you lose then?
  
  How is it a draw is both black bishop and king are still playing? Queen moves back, white king moves anywhere it wants and for good sake do a proper check mate
  An I over analysing?
- Wrong move, stalemate (white has no legal moves). White gets off with a draw.

This comic is indeed by oppressive silence comics by Ethan Vincent.
He seems to have disappeared from the internet in mid-2018. This comic titled draw seems to have been his second to last published comic.
Archived link to his website.
xcancel link to his twitter.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT2rHcqYr/
silly chess educational tiktok to ummm not have this happen.

I suck at chess so badly.
I castle my king because I think castling is cool.

Is this some special rule? Looks like check mate to me?
- It's a stalemate
- It's only checkmate if he's currently in check and has no legal moves afaik.
- The queen can't take the king from that position, so he's not in check, so it's not check mate.

I've never understood why stalemate is draw.
- Chess is an old game, and stalemate wasn't always considered a draw. At other times, creating a stalemate may have been considered a win or loss or partial win, or it may have been illegal altogether. But the modern draw makes sense if you keep in mind a few things. First, the victory condition is putting the opponent's king in checkmate (or accepting their concession). Second, exposing your king to an attack during your move is not just a blunder, it is actually an illegal move, to the point that you can't even do it as a pass through while castling. So stalemate is a unique outcome where neither player achieves their victory condition, yet the game cannot continue, since the player who must move next has no legal moves available.
  In a practical sense, stalemate offers a means of giving a player in an inferior position a means of escaping a loss by punishing the dominant player for not being able to capitalize on their lead. It helps prevent someone from being able to brute force a win by making safe moves that do little to actually progress the game, like advancing all their pawns until the game is trivial. It's much less interesting to have the end game strategy be more about not losing one's lead rather than extending it.
  So a win requires being more than slightly ahead of an opponent. It's worth pointing out that most high level chess games end in a draw where neither player has a sufficient lead to force a checkmate. There are other rules in modern chess that also force a draw to make sure the game is more about getting a win than just avoiding a loss. Otherwise there would be plenty of ways someone could stall forever to try to get their opponent to concede, and that's not very interesting.
- Not in check = not in danger
  
  I understand the reasoning, not the legitimacy.
- because there are situations where you do have moves left, but the end in a repeating pattern; the more "classic" stalemate condition.
  there's just no "special" case for when you have no legal moves, thus it defaults to stalemate

66 comments