If you cannot checkmate your opponrnt with most of your pieces then a stalemate is deserved. Chess has rules and a stalemate is one of them.
Chuck
How can i stalemate when i have most of my pieces and the opponent had king only
Sort:
Bad rules of chess! Bad! No dinner for you!
ok let me explain to you something when your opponent has a king then if you move a piece and you dont put him into check and your opponent cant move its called stalemate
i am sure he didnt kow this i am trying to widen his chess knowledge
snakesbelly wrote:
I think this is the 'solution' to chess everybody is always talking about. If you play Kasparov,Polgar or some super computer just lose all your pieces and then get a stalemate. Sure you only get half a point but so does everbody else . Chess solved.
I will personally donate US$1000 to the charity of your choice if the OP is in fact able to lose his pieces to Kasparov or Polgar and then get a stalemate. In fact, I'll even make it US$100 if he can lose all his pieces to me and then get a stalemate. 
But I don't play blitz, bullet or any of that silly stuff.
snakesbelly wrote:
I don't understand why these rules favor the loser and it's in every aspect of the game I started playing live chess until one day I was destroying this guy and just because he had more time left than me he won!!! What has more time got to do with chess, time does not make you a better player!!
Its your job to capture the king, not corner him.
snakesbelly wrote:
This is why chess will always be just a game and never be a true sport because in real sport if you beat a guy on points or goals or tries or whatever you win even if the time runs out.
In real life, if you have a superior weapon, superior bullets, much more bullets and also an aiming scope, but you take three minutes to press the trigger in a gunfight, you die.
Okay, let's lighten up on Brackess a little bit. What we are dealing with, here, is a misunderstanding of the rules of chess.
Brackess, you need to calm down yourself. I looked at your games and it happened only once.
In Chess, if your opponent can not make a move, the game is considered a stalemate. Here is the game in question:
Remembering the rule that the opponent has to have a place to move, let's look at this. It is White's turn. The King can only move 1 square in any direction. The King has no place to go! Any move the King makes either places it in a square adjacent of your King (an illegal move) or in check with the Queen.
Because the Queen covers not only ranks and files but also diagonals, the King/Queen checkmate can be a little tricky. In each move of the King/Queen checkmate. you must make sure that the King has a place to go until you are ready to affect checkmate.
Let's analyze the game a little:
One more suggestion, and this is strictly personal and many will disagree. This was a 10/0 game. I suggest to stay away from speed chess. I would suggest that you play no less than 15/10 games (30" is allright too) or correspondence chess. Also, look into articles and tools that chess.com has to offer.
Good luck in your future games.
helltank wrote:
snakesbelly wrote:
This is why chess will always be just a game and never be a true sport because in real sport if you beat a guy on points or goals or tries or whatever you win even if the time runs out.
In real life, if you have a superior weapon, superior bullets, much more bullets and also an aiming scope, but you take three minutes to press the trigger in a gunfight, you die.
And herein lies the problem. In the game that ended in stalemate, posted above, nothing was aimed at the King. Everything was aimed around the King.
Note that in the "blue" line in #21, 67. ...Qb7# wins at once.
Gil-Gandel wrote:
Note that in the "blue" line in #21, 67. ...Qb7# wins at once.
hehheh, yeah, I caught that after I posted it, a little embarassing.
Well, it wasn't until about the 1850s that the chess world came to agree unanimously that a stalemate would be counted as a draw. You could get in your time machine and go back to before that time and duel it out if you came to a stalemate.
CaptainPike makes an excellent point - even the best of players make errors under time pressure. You need a comfortable environment in which to play with enough time to make the best moves you can but don't blame the rules of the game when you make a mistake !
Talking of which, I'm not certain about the analysis offered in post #21 - in the alternative line shown, wouldn't black play 66...Qb6# ? & come to that why would white play 66.Ka6 in the first place when he should have gone to a8 ?
The fact is, it takes at least 4 moves (if white doesn't cooperate) to bring about mate which brings me to my next point - was Brackess wrong in moving his king to c5 ? because it looks o/k to me if you play the best moves:-
Mate is forced in no more than 4 moves. So perhaps c5 wasn't such a bad move ?
Normally, however you should aim to limit your opponent to just one file or rank at the edge of the board & then close in with the king.
! Just spent a good hour or more trying to embed my version of the diagram in this post....anyone need help with their chess because I definitely need help using the tools on this website ?
(I think I went wrong when I started with the diagram & then tried to use the 'Embed' function on the Board Editor !)
(I think I went wrong when I started with the diagram & then tried to use the 'Embed' function on the Board Editor !)
[COMMENT DELETED]
CaptainPike wrote:
Gil-Gandel wrote:
Note that in the "blue" line in #21, 67. ...Qb7# wins at once.
hehheh, yeah, I caught that after I posted it, a little embarassing.
No worries, I've been caught with my @$$ out in the breeze worse than that.
It keeps happening where i am clearly winning, the opponent is down to the king only, it will only take a few moves to get checkmate, and then i get a stalemate? It makes no sense, i rightfully won the game, yet i get punished. Worse is that the opponent who deserves a loss gets off with a stalemate.