Is it possible to arrive at a stalemate with perfect play by both sides?

or must the side the that stalemated the enemy King necessarily have had a winning advantage at some point prior to conclusion that got blundered back away?  And if a 'perfect' round ending in a stalemate (from No legal moves outside of check, rather than a 'Draw' netting same 0.5-0.5 score via 3fold/50move/insuf.mat./mut.agr.) is indeed possible, then how common an occurrence is it?

I would think that if both players played flawlessly the game result must always result in a draw.

I believe the second game between Radjabov and Grischuk in the 2013 Candidates' Tournament ended in a stalemate. Neither side necessarily played perfectly, but I don't think they made any obvious blunders.

@NMSM:  I wonder if White could get stalemated (force itself into no legal moves) rather than Black, still with accurate play (i.e. drawing odds the whole round, with no moves quantitatively weak enough to be considered an error/blunder/mistake played by either side).

'perfect' as in flawless: not necessarily the mathematically strongest move possible, but never blunder.

'blunder': a mistake that is severe enough to change theoretic conclusion of the round to a lower level. Presumably chess is a draw from move0.  Therefore, the first move played that changes that to a 'loss' by the side that played it would be considered a blunder by this definition. If the opponent on the following half-turn did not aptly capitalize on the preceding blunder in a way that progresses towards victory but instead returns the round 'Draw' status or even worse (loss instead of win), that would itself be a blunder.

Of course the gametree is no where close to exausted, but through engine analysis we can make reasonable guesses as to weather or not a checkmate can assuredly be forced within thirtyy moves or so (which is very short but still covers likely over 95% of actual positions encountered, especially considering human timecontrols and calculating abilities).

By the above definition of a blunder, a losing side can technically make no further blunders, and might as well resign at once.  That assumes flawless play by opposing side with a winning advantage, though, which very rarely occurs in moderately complex positions, even by 2.9--3.4kElo engines.

there's no such thing as perfect play. your game can always be improved and there are always better moves to make based on gameplay and your opponent's skill level. nothing is ever completely perfect especially in chess

If it's a stalemate it is not perfect play....I guess you mean a draw???

It seems unlikely (to me) ... if both players were playing perfect moves, why would one only be able to get the draw by forcing his opponent to stalemate him, and why wouldn't the other player see the potential stalemate on the horizon?

@Murgen:. Perhaps unavoidable after a certain point? In this perfect round there might be other branches that could lead toward [non-Stalemate ]draws at various moves, but the actual one played that results in a Stalemate draw mat very well be 'accurate' as well.

Bear in mind that the instant there became insufficient material for either side to deliver c'mate, thar constitutes a draw, by virtue of Insufficient Material rather than stalemate. A R+B+K vs. K[ or K+N conceivably] endgame might be winnable only iff lone K is on same color as B ..(or am I mistaken?)

bad gs

To answer this question fairly, chess would have to be solved by computers, since at the moment we don't know what "perfect" play is like.  That said, stalemate ideas, although very rarely, are encountered every now and then on the top level. I remember looking at some, I think, Kramnik-Topalov game from one of the 2006 tournaments, where one of them saved a seemingly hopeless rook endgame by putting his king in the corner and constantly blocking opponent's rook with his rook - eventually it was forced to take it, leading to stalemate.

Thank you(@MayCaesar) for that thoughtful response with a real-life example!

Unless said round indicated any discernible blunders, it very well may have been 'perfect', suggesting that yes in fact stalemate can occur under accurate play/counterplay since opening.

@0sumPuzzlerDtoWL:

You are welcome! Now that I think about it, it is very much possible for stalemates to never occur in a near-perfect play situation. For example, the mentioned endgame might not have happened, if the player with the advantage could have foreseen it before. Very often even the top players willingly hop into the endgame that seems winning, and then they encounter some tactical element that makes their initial decision to play a move leading to that endgame wrong.

It is possible that no game in which stalemate became a factor had to end this way, and it is possible that the side with an advantage can always avoid stalemate being an issue by precise play. However, whether it is always the case or not, might never be demonstrated.