• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Did Data cheat at Strategema?

Death Ray

Death Ray

Commander
Red Shirt
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't playing for a stalemate illegitimate in chess? If so, it seems likely that it would be forbidden in Strategema.

And if this tactic wasn't illegal, then given the Zakdorn's innate perception of strategy, it seems unlikely that a youthful Zakdorn with extremely nimble fingers wouldn't have deployed it at least once in their history to thwart a grand master.
 
Grandmasters in chess play for draws all the time, for strategic reasons in a tournament.

What Data did isn't cheating but it's dirty play. Winning the game not by the strategy the game intends but by taking advantage of his physical endurance advantage.
 
It was a necessary lesson to Kolrami: the machines are coming. The metal octopus does not care about weak, human fingers.
 
As said, playing for a stalemate is a perfectly viable and legal strategy in chess. It's often done when you have no hope of winning against a (superior) opponent or because he's in an advantageous position and that stalemate is still the best you can hope and play for. It's also often done when two opponents 'have' to play one another, but they both know they are of approximate equal strength, a draw is therefore the most likely outcome anyway and if they may want to save some energy for a future, decisive round they may both agree on an early draw.
 
A stalemate in chess is when one side has no legal move when it is his or her turn. I doubt if it ever happens at the highest levels of chess. While it is considered a draw, the terms are not interchangeable.
But most draws are simply agreed upon by the players for various reasons. Many times the top players prearrange a draw and make 20 moves or so before they officially agree to a draw. Draws also result from a threefold repetition of a position if one player claims the draw or if there is not enough material on the board to force a checkmate.
.
 
Personally, I wouldn't even bother to debate the rules of chess. Many two-player games have completely incompatible rules, so it makes no sense to just assume that Chess and Strategema share this particular one.
 
Strategema is the ultimate evolution of strategy games just like Anbo-jyutsu is the ultimate evolution of martial arts.
Picture-125.png
 
Playing for a stalemate is perfectly valid. It is slightly disapproved of, but is a sensible conclusion. If the other player can't get a victory past your stalemate... you stopped them winning.
 
Might be interesting though how playing styles of chess would change if you 'removed' the draw possibility from it.

(That is, the draw possibility is quite built -in in to the game with naturally occurring positions that cannot have any of both players winning anymore, e.g. only both Kings left, but you could add an extra rule that a "draw" counts as a loss for both players.).
 
at Quark's said:
naturally occurring positions that cannot have any of both players winning anymore, e.g. only both Kings left
Click to expand...
You'd have to be an abysmally bad chess player to lose your second last piece to a King. I am very average at chess and even I've never done it. ;)
 
Tosk said:
You'd have to be an abysmally bad chess player to lose your second last piece to a King. I am very average at chess and even I've never done it. ;)
Click to expand...

That doesn't need to happen in order to arrive at a two KA (King Alone) position. For example, you can arrive at that position when both players still have a king and a single extra piece (of equal worth), and an exchange of those pieces follows, forced or not.

Besides that, there are many more positions that are a dead draw, I merely mentioned the dual KA position as the easiest example of such a position where no player can possibly win anymore, and hence has a draw 'built in'. On top of that, there are still many more positions that could theoretically still be won by one side, but in practice never would, given an even very modest level of decent play by the opponent. Such positions are often also declared a draw in advance.
 
Last edited:
There was no draw, Kolrami quit the game, by all reason he could have kept playing and Data could've kept extending the game until Kolrami died of thirst, and even then Data wouldn't have "won" the game. Which, he didn't do. You don't really win when the other person quit.

You bust them up.

;)
 
at Quark's said:
For example, you can arrive at that position when both players still have a king and a single extra piece (of equal worth), and an exchange of those pieces follows, forced or not.
Click to expand...
That's what I was talking about. If you both have a king and one other piece, the person who first loses their extra piece only has a king with which to somehow take the other player's non-king piece. Which is why I said that person would have to be pretty bad to manage to lose their extra piece.

at Quark's said:
Besides that, there are many more positions that are a dead draw
Click to expand...
I know. I was only picking on the two kings thing.
 
Tosk said:
That's what I was talking about. If you both have a king and one other piece, the person who first loses their extra piece only has a king with which to somehow take the other player's non-king piece. Which is why I said that person would have to be pretty bad to manage to lose their extra piece.
Click to expand...

Let me give a counterexample, then.

Suppose for example the following.position: White Ke2, pawn h7. black Ka1, pawn b2, black to move.
1 ... b2-b1Q
2. h7-h8Q (checks Black) Qb1-b2 (checks White)
Now White, if he doesn't want to lose his queen next move by Qb2xh8 and end up losing the game, has no choice but to take the black queen, after which Black is forced to take back:
3. Qh8xb2 Ka1xb2

So this is an example where none of both played 'badly' but still ended up KA.

Or do I simply misunderstand what you're saying?

But, going back to the topic at hand, it seems a bit strange that that Stratagem game apparently has no provision in place in case your opponent refuses to play further. Most games (I think) have some rule to the effect that a player who refuses to play further (without having come to an agreement with his opponent) loses the match. Otherwise it would be too simple to avoid a loss by just refusing to continue to play when you're in a hopelessly lost position. But perhaps such provisions are no longer necessary in the 'evolved' 24th century ;)
 
Last edited:
gakelly said:
A stalemate in chess is when one side has no legal move when it is his or her turn. I doubt if it ever happens at the highest levels of chess. While it is considered a draw, the terms are not interchangeable.
But most draws are simply agreed upon by the players for various reasons. Many times the top players prearrange a draw and make 20 moves or so before they officially agree to a draw. Draws also result from a threefold repetition of a position if one player claims the draw or if there is not enough material on the board to force a checkmate.
.
Click to expand...

Also if 50 moves pass without a piece being taken or a pawn advancing.
 
Ah yes, TrekBBS, never quit being you. Comparing a fictional game shown on TV to Chess. I'm speechless

Now, Fizbin, that's another story ;)
 
Tosk said:
You'd have to be an abysmally bad chess player to lose your second last piece to a King. I am very average at chess and even I've never done it. ;)
Click to expand...

But that doesn't really mean anything. You can have 2 knights and not checkmate your opponent unless they screw up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top