Stalemate Traps - When all else fails
Tactics by IM Paul Littlewood (from ECF ChessMoves – September 2025)
Observing the recent British Chess Championships, it struck me that there were quite a few times when stalemate traps were set by the opponent who was clearly losing. For example, consider the following position:
As a last cunning try Daniel has just played g4. Now 1...e1=Q would be a bad mistake, because White could then reply 2.Qg7+! and after 2...Kxg7 it would be stalemate. However, Richard avoided this by promoting to a rook instead, and Daniel resigned.It is vital to be on the look-out for stalemate possibilities when you are easily winning, as you can be sure that your opponent will be trying his hardest to lure you into the trap.
My next example is taken from a junior tournament played some years ago.
Bachar Kouatly – Jonathan Mestel
Black to move
Jonathan is clearly losing, but he saw an interesting way to achieve a stalemate if his opponent faltered. The game continued 1...Ra1 2.a6? (2.Bc4 is winning for White) 2...g3+ 3.Kf3 Ra3+ 4.Kxf4 (4.Ke4 Re3+) Rxa6! with a draw, because if rook or bishop takes a6 it is stalemate, and otherwise the white rook can be chased along the eighth rank by the black rook—for example, 5.Rh8 Rh6 etc —the ‘mad rook’ manoeuvre we have talked about before.
As I have constantly reiterated, it is important to stay vigilant at all times, because there are all kinds of tactics out there waiting to catch you out!
Here now are two examples for you to solve, with the answers given at the end of the article.
Peter played 1...Re2 and went on to win. Why didn’t he play the natural 1...Rg7 to defend his bishop?
After toiling for many hours White had built up a winning position, but then replied 1.c4 to his opponent’s check. Why was this a mistake?