Why did I get a stalemate when my last move put their king in checkmate?


Think about it like this, if the white player was allowed to move again after the move that would have been stalemate, and they cannot take the black king. Then the game ends and it is a draw.


Bottom line is that these rules are rules and you should learn about them or play a different game. Complaining will do nothing as these rules have been here and been supported for hundreds if not thousands of years.


Is this another thread about why stalemate should be a win?


rules can be changed, to just say "rules are rules if you dont like em play a different game" is just plain stupid.     if you took this mindset then we would have never progressed beyond shatranj, and let me tell you....chess has come a long way with the rule changes. why all of a sudden are rule changes pariah?

zombiemaster22 wrote:

rules can be changed, to just say "rules are rules if you dont like em play a different game" is just plain stupid.     if you took this mindset then we would have never progressed beyond shatranj, and let me tell you....chess has come a long way with the rule changes. why all of a sudden are rule changes pariah?

Even if they can be changed, the rule that stalemate should be a win for the person who triggered the stalemate is illogical for chess. Chinese chess and chess are two different things.


And only if the OP learned more about the Chess game. Maybe if that happened, all this useless quarrel could've been avoided.

Given that, I suspect trolling was involved.

BassSitar wrote:

Why did I get a stalemate when my last move put their king in checkmate?

43. Qg3 is simply a patzer.

zombiemaster22 wrote:

rules can be changed"


Is it possible to feel such difficulties to catch such utmost simple point? Or is it the famous "as blind as the one who don't want to hear"? So let me clarify it (probably for the last time as there would be no use to go further).

Rules can be changed. They ARE changed very often (tournaments rules, world championship rules, these change all the time).

But they are NOT changed by a newcomer who don't understand the ****** endgame subtility and it's niceties and whine "blahblahillogicalblahblah" on a forum after he missed an easy victory after a big blunder. It's really a pity that someone had to EXPLAIN such obviousness. Of course game's rules DO change and WILL change again and again. But imagining that you arrive on a forum with an idea like "stalemate draw is not logical let's change it", whining to get a victory etc and assuming that no one ever had such brilliant idea like you in the past few centuries and that now all the chess community should listen to YOU the "new rule-genius" is extremely pathetic. To be polite.


The fact is all these ideas OF COURSE have already been discussed by people much smarter and cleverer than you and me, much more aware of chess subtility and mechanisms and they took long time to decide what would be best. When a beginner arrives and imagines he understands all better, you know... It's really farcical, looks more like a jester's last fool day's idea.


See, when you know almost nothing about a game and you don't understand why a rule is the way it is, and the game is a few thousands years old and has attracted many of the most clever minds over the world during all these years, it's better to ask "why is the rule like this?" (many people will be nice enough to explain) than claiming you know better. But after all, you just do what you want, there is no offence in behaving like a self-important conceited immature child to anyone... except for the one who do have such behaviour. Other will laugh and --at the beginning-- try to explain politely. But if you even insist after explanations... I guess they'll start getting annoyed. Like that :

557 : "Given that, I suspect trolling was involved."
Could be it...


Now before some other Troll goes on Google (sometimes Trolls turn suddenly google-frendly when it comes to piss-off) and find some great players defending the stalemate as a win... I don't MEAN that it would be a bad idea to change this particular rule. There are some real reasons for doing so. Not that I support it, but I respect the professional people who sometimes support the idea to oppose the increasing draw tendency. I DON'T KNOW if this would be a good rule or not, I just let the professional discuss the point seriously. But what I know for sure is the argument "whhinewhhhhiiiineIlostthegameit'sillogicalblahblah" is not worth being mentioned on a forum. It's just ridiculing those doing so, period.


EndGameStudier : "Is this another thread about why stalemate should be a win?"


No no! Don't worry this thank-goodness is not. There have been no mention of any real argument for this. Only some lost-by-stalemate troll's whinings.


Note : Not a fan of humiliating argues on forums but after many people trying to explain very politely and wasting their time as their efforts get rewarded by contempt only, and after more and more insistence, crude reality sometimes ends up being told.


do you not have an h key?


(1) If it were for me...

Just to say (nothing bad saying what one would enjoy as long as one don't try to changes the rules) what I would enjoy most with the stalemate would be if tricking out a stalemate gives a 3/4-1/4 result.
My begginner's first feeling would be the changes are very small as it's somehow harder to get a stalemate than a checkmate but it may be wrong. Anyway there would be an increase of diversity as in some cases when you're not certain to win, next strategy would be to secure a stalemate instead. But still stalemate would keep being a bad mistake the rest of the time. This would not change too much the end-game overall strategy compared to stalemate=1-0 I guess (?) but there would appear many new strategies when an endgame approaches with equal forces. Many very subtle and interesting strategies to try to maximise the chances to snatch a quarter point from the situation. Maybe some minor pieces get additional value when endgame approaches if they increase the chances, and it would be very nice (to me at least) to see many new challenges for top level players to deal with, there would I think be some veeeeery interesting new theories and secret strategies and so on for some time and less draw, and most of us don't like draw that much. Syzygy tables would change (dramatically?). I honestly don't know how far it would change the endgames, I have not been thinking long enough about it to really weigh how doable catching a stalemate with a bishop and a king versus a king could be but I thing in most situations, that would be impossible to get and game would differ only when the last pawn eaten by the king was close to a corner and then opponent would have to think in advance where he should have the bishop placed and such (?) but maybe some new tables would appear about how to force a stalemate in 643 moves with K+N+N vs K...? Honestly if some end game specialists are able to give an approximate idea of the extend of the changes that would make, I'm really interested. Or if a programmer is able to introduce this rule in a chess engine to see the result, that would be extremely interesting too.


(2) Nothing new here but many things are still to be evaluating otherwise it's hard to make a clear picture of the consequences!

Probably this has already been discussed somewhere but it's not that easy to search for this (this subject has been discussed many times but the real implications have rarely really been mentioned except the fuzzy "less draw" but how less?) Anyway I would enjoy such a change, at least for a few months (and then if if turns out to be crappy then we can backtrack). But that's just about my enjoyment. I don't mean to ask for such change if some people more invested in chess than me can interpolate and anticipate a negative impact.

At least I have discovered it is a REAL project about correspondence chess where draw are at peek. Still no real evaluation of the difference it would really make.


(3) Chess variants propositions then?

At least I think it would be very nice to have it first as an alternative game, a variant of chess that we can play if we want instead of chess, just enough to really feel the implications and have fun with it. If I'm not alone to expect it, I would be ready to ask programmers (be it GUI or engines) from some opensource projects if they would be in. Once we have played a bit with this rule, if it proves to be really a good game, then it may naturally be introduced in real chess, if some players and organisers and federations like to, little step by little step, allowing rated games with the rule, then maybe tournaments etc. But really it's hard to talk about all these without a deep understanding of endgames. So above all I would really start my enjoyment by asking the titled and highly rated players out here, or endgame experts, how would thay feel about it? Would they have fun developing new theories ans strategies to grab the quarter point? Or is it too marginal to retain our attention? Or at the opposite, too big a change to be introduced in chess without destroying too much of the fascinating theories existing now?
In the same direction, there is another variant I would like to try some time. Like what if you gain more points when opponent have more material at the end of the game? I don't know you but I surely find the games where checkmate is executed with a beautiful combination of many pieces than when a player resign because he lacks a pawn at the end of a game that was just a fast massive pieces exchange party. To me most exchange are "somehow" admissions of weakness. So could it be punished by a smaller victory?  As far as I have thought about it may not be as good an idea as it seems as in practice it would go against the magical simplicity of the game. What do you think? Are these ideas of chess variants interesting for you? Would you give 'em a try and play a bit to see what it looks like?