lichess.org
Donate

What is the stupidest rule in chess?

Perpetual check. Or forcing stalemates. The player doing so shoukd get a loss. If a win is not possible then resign. This is for over 14yrs old or 1600 elo. Below that do whatever. Nothing more pathetic than seeing a super GM go for a Perpetual check.

Perpetual check. Or forcing stalemates. The player doing so shoukd get a loss. If a win is not possible then resign. This is for over 14yrs old or 1600 elo. Below that do whatever. Nothing more pathetic than seeing a super GM go for a Perpetual check.

You sound like someone who lost a lot of games to perpetual checks and stalemates.

Just deal with it.

You sound like someone who lost a lot of games to perpetual checks and stalemates. Just deal with it.

Can't think of one, all rules seem to make sense.

Can't think of one, all rules seem to make sense.

Not being able to castle during check

Not being able to castle during check

Capturing the opponent's king is "not allowed" (Article 1.4.1) but could still be a legal move (in an illegal position) if it follows the movement rules (Articles 3.1-3.9).

Capturing the opponent's king is "not allowed" (Article 1.4.1) but could still be a legal move (in an illegal position) if it follows the movement rules (Articles 3.1-3.9).

@Sonya_Alushkina said ^

I think that stalemate = a draw, not a win, is an unpleasant surprise for many beginners. This rule has existed for over 500 years and maintains a balance between attack and defense. "Stupid" moments arise when the winning side makes mistakes; proper endgame technique prevents them. Masters deliberately use stalemate as a resource for stealing half-points and defeating their opponents.

Without that it's just counting material rendering chess more boring.

@Sonya_Alushkina said [^](/forum/redirect/post/u2m3C62b) > I think that stalemate = a draw, not a win, is an unpleasant surprise for many beginners. This rule has existed for over 500 years and maintains a balance between attack and defense. "Stupid" moments arise when the winning side makes mistakes; proper endgame technique prevents them. Masters deliberately use stalemate as a resource for stealing half-points and defeating their opponents. Without that it's just counting material rendering chess more boring.

Phisher Ransom Chess and all this random stuff.

Phisher Ransom Chess and all this random stuff.

@Tapio said ^

Stalemate should be a loss for the trapped king.

But what about Eric Rosen?

@Tapio said [^](/forum/redirect/post/wmS7UzA1) > Stalemate should be a loss for the trapped king. But what about Eric Rosen?

for me armageddon game to break ties is so unnatural- getting a win for a draw. i think there's a better way- play with increasingly faster time limits and if not resolved then go to FIRST TO WIN. example is time limit of 1min + 2sec

for me armageddon game to break ties is so unnatural- getting a win for a draw. i think there's a better way- play with increasingly faster time limits and if not resolved then go to FIRST TO WIN. example is time limit of 1min + 2sec

In my opinion, the most ridiculous rule in chess is that if the rook , king pawn etc. are arranged incorrectly and 10 moves have passed by the time it's noticed, the game continues from where it left off. This is a FIDE rule.

In my opinion, the most ridiculous rule in chess is that if the rook , king pawn etc. are arranged incorrectly and 10 moves have passed by the time it's noticed, the game continues from where it left off. This is a FIDE rule.