Help Crafting Fictional Chess Match

Your scenario is rather elaborate.

As an alternative you might do as others have done and base your fictional game on a real game; the one I have in mind is a blitz game between Kasparov and Georgiev (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258478). Kasparov has much the better of the game and is left with queen and bishop against Georgiev's sole king. He is in the process of delivering mate when he blunders and creates a stalemate.

Thanks for your input... I still feel the specific defense isn't what I'm going for considering my hopes for the brashness of B's opening ... but perhaps that aspect could be revisitied.

As for your question: The year is immaterial (considering it's another world/universe) but the cultural setting is analoguous for the old world from the 11th through late 14th centuries. It's a pretty diverse place (culturally, historically, ecologically) so it's hard to point to a 'setting'... the setting of this vignette is in the ample (yet clutterd) quarters of an elite intellectual.

I'll keep working on this for you if you tell me what's wrong with Eichhorn-Mertlitsch from post #15.

This is interesting - it meets the majority of my criterea - a stalemate (through blunder though, not forced); a queened pawn; a dominating mid-to-endgame performance (unless I'm reading it wrong)...

the only 'missing pieces' are a flawwed opening gambit, a decidedly obvious differential in skill (though you could point to the successful mid-to-endgame as a sign of this) and a stalemate forced through cunning and not an obvious blunder... I could change the dialogue in the pre-stalemate moments to befuddle "A" (white) forcing the miscalculation but I'm not sure that's the way I want to go.

In any case - this is very close to what I'm looking for. Thanks. I'm still welcoming critiques/suggestions etc... 

I found a nice stalemate for you.

Judit Polgar almost blundered into this.

The game was Polgar-Iordachescu.

I apologize for not addressing the post directly. I blame the NyQuil from last night.

Part of me thinks the opening isn't 'dramatic/bold' enough from Back - again, this may be just my poor chess skills not recognizing the circumstances... was Black's immediate goal a specific opening attack or merely a positional arrangement that is quickly rebuffed?

If it's the former (please elucidate the intended line of attack clearly). If it's the latter, Black's opening is less what I'd envisioned for character "B".

Other than that, the speedy retaliation seems apt, but "fill in your own stalemate" is too much to ask for a "Chess for Dummies" individual such as myself. I wouln't know what plays to make from either angle. 

Again, I aplogize for not addressing your post directly earlier. Thanks for your continued aid (should you choose to give it).

In the game from post 15, Black's opening is a known technique.  It is the Latvian Gambit.

Regarding post 26, How do you feel about the game Polgar-Iordachescu?

I appreciate your response.

Did some work on the Latvian Gambit and it fits pretty solidly. I'm fairly certain I'll be utilizing it for the opener.

As for the P-I endgame, couldn't comprehend how Polgar almost let Viorel I. into the position she describes in the twitter-pic. What blunder would have allowed such an arrangement?

It's a fairly interesting stalemate regardless; but I always envisioned the endgame stalemate with more materiel on the board when A. and B. finished their game. 

You are asking for alot when you ask for a stalemate with a lot of material.

I suggest you use the Eichhorn-Mertlitsch game and have a program play out the ending if you need to.  Then, once the program has played it out to #mate1-0, write in a stalemating blunder such as:

Rybka vs. Nakamura reminds me of how The Joker (who would do everything in his power to cheat... it's in his character) and Batman (who would know Joker would want to cheat and rely on the computer's word as gospel and therefore exploit it) would probably go down.