why is a stalemate considered a draw?
I've wondered this ever since i can remember. it makes no sense to me.
The clear objective of chess is to capture the king. Players are obliged to keep this from happening throughout the game until at the end he cannot. If the king is in check the person with the check wins the game. If the king is not in check it is a tie! What difference does this make since if the game were to continue the person stalemated cannot win the game and his opponent, on the following move, will win the game.
What can be considered a draw about this situation?
To those who will say. The stalemated person cannot move or else he will break the rules. To this i say .. is this alone not a reason to lose. He will break the rules on his next turn. How is this translated into a draw?
It may be unfair at certain times but the winning pplayers duty is too make sure he does not creat a stalemate oppurtunity.
And also, it has to be a draw,
You cannot just skip someones turn if he cannot move.
well both checkmate and stalemate leave the player in a situation where his next move will break the rules.
I also agree that it adds a nuance to the game which is interesting. My question here is does anyone know how a clearly losing position came to be considered a draw, historically speaking?
The object of the game is to checkmate the opponents kings therefore it comes the responsibility of preventing a drawing position such as a stalemate position.
The possibility of a draw requires the play with more material advantage to be up a certain amount... sort of like a "win by two" rule. With the possibility of a draw, players who are only down a knight can force a draw; check out my article:
http://www.chess.com/article/view/constructing-the-fortress4
Many eastern/Asian Chess variants have considered stalemates to be winning conditions for either side through the ages. On the other hand, some variants have gone to great lengths to avoid them. For example, Shatranj gave the win to the side that causes the stalemate, and in Makruk, the situation is avoided by setting a move limit based on remaining material. In general, there is no precedent for favoring the draw over a win or loss, but the consensus appears to be that it makes the game more interesting in terms of how pieces are valued at different stages of the game. A game that cannot be drawn becomes a matter of preserving material, and neither side will want to end it for fear of loss. This could create games that last a very long time. The Draw (by stalemate) recognizes both players' ability and gives them a way to end the game without prolonging it.
For more information,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate
"The clear objective of chess is to capture the king." -Ashataranj
This is where your problem is; the goal of the game is "checkmate", and stalemate is a failure of it. Seriously though, why do you care? you're either stalemating too many won games in blitz, or don't know how to checkmate properly; both cases I'm just going to say "get over it" and "get better."
Although a stalemate may not make sense in terms of who is stronger and who can mate easily, it does make sense if you consider the rules of the game. A king can't enter into a check throughout a game. Imagine it is the endgame and your king crosses the f-file which is controlled by the enemy rook!! :) You can't, right? Similarly, noone can take the king! :) Having in mind these two rules you can understand stalemate as an error in chess! Every time such positions occur the game breaks down much like a computer freezes. In a stalemate you have to enter into a check, which you can't really. But then you have no other moves...
That makes perfect sense to me and stalemate is a nice rule in chess to avoid any errors and misunderstandings :)
Many eastern/Asian Chess variants have considered stalemates to be winning conditions for either side through the ages. On the other hand, some variants have gone to great lengths to avoid them. For example, Shatranj gave the win to the side that causes the stalemate, and in Makruk, the situation is avoided by setting a move limit based on remaining material.
In Chinese Chess, stalemate is also a winning condition.
Think of it this way - originally a player won by capturing the opponent's king. So if your king was checkmated, it was no use checking the opponent's king - opponent captures your king and the game is over [imagine each side's king containing the power supply to that side's other pieces - once the king is dead the other pieces instantly die :) ]
Now clearly actually capturing the king is irrelevant [and irreverent :)] so the game ends with a win for the checkmating side.
With a stalemated player to move, however, the player on move has no legal move! There's no question of king-capture - the game just reaches a dead-end - a stalemate - a draw.
Right, so someone died and they put you in charge ?
This would completely rewrite endgame theory. A player couldn't use tactics to enter into a drawn K+P v. K endgame, nor would players have to learn how to mate with B+B or B+N. Attempting to leave your opponent with rook pawns would be useless. A pawn on the seventh would no longer be able to draw against a queen. All told, chess would be worse. A player with a strong material advantage should be able to avoid stalemate. If this rule ever changes, I'll probably just start playing more video games unless I can find people who are willing to continue to use the draw by stalemate rule.
No draws except for bare king vs. bare king, well what do we do with all the positions such as K+R vs.K+R or K+B vs.K or K+Q vs.K+Q or K+N vs. K+N just to name a few flip a coin to see who wins? Stalemate is part of the game just like enpassant which some people seem to have a problem with. If you are the player with the material advantage it is up to you to force the win and aviod stalemate and if you can't then your opponent should get the draw.
I agree that on the surface it seems a bit odd to have stalemate == draw.
But, as pointed out by a previous poster, it would change endgame theory, and therefore change the entire game. For example:
K + B vs K needs to be re-evaluated. Can the bishop and king force the enemy king into the corner of the other color? K + 2N vs K is obviously a win now. K + P vs K is now a win without even queening the pawn. K + Q vs K is a win without even using the king!
Of course this rule will not change - but to keep the humor of the situation, perhaps a better rule than "stalemate wins" would be "stalemate wins, but only if the superior side can deliver checkmate if the inferior side passes".
Too complicated, let's just leave it how it is. Oh, and one more thing, a bunch of the tactics trainer problems would have to be re-evaluated!
I have never understood or liked this rule either. Now I am just so entrenched in chess as it is, I don't really care anymore.
To Cobblepot:
Well, of course endgame theory would change because endgame theory has evolved in respect to the current set of rules. But why was this rule created from the beginning, before any endgame theory came about?
stalemate should not be a win. if so who would it be a win for? in this position, white is clearly down on material even if white wins the rook and knight. white's only save is the forced stalemate with e6! of course this shouldn't be a win, but it should at least be awarded with a draw.
K+R vs K+R can either be played to checkmate (unlikely), the exchange of the rooks (more likely) or until the 50 move rule comes into play (most likely).
K+B or K+N vs K win goes to player with superior material. I outplayed you to the advantage of a piece, why shouldn't I win?
K+R vs K+B or K+N win goes to player with superior material. I outplayed you to being up the exchange and you have insufficient material for checkmate, so why shouldn't I win?
K+B or K+N vs K+B or K+N would be a draw (I have to concede that one since nobody has sufficient material to checkmate, although you could argue the value of the minor pieces to determine superior material. If bishops were officially considered superior to knights, then K+N would lose against K+B)
There would be some circumstances where a draw can be allowed, but when I have K, Q, and N vs your bare king, I should NEVER lose even if you manage to get into a stalemate position. As soon as your king is stripped bare against material sufficient for checkmate or where I have more material and you have no way to strip my king bare, you should be forced to resign. I outplayed you to the advantage of a Q and N, so I should get the win immediately instead of being forced to play it out. If we reach an endgame where you have been unable to re-establish equality, then what makes you think that you deserve to get an equal result? Why should you be rewarded and I be penalized for your obviously inferior play?
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.
But how much do you know about the game - the history, the players, the rules, and more!? Take our quiz and compare your scores!
Mark all forum topics as READ