Stalemate was invented by a loser

Stalemate as a draw is great, may it never change, but the reason- for me- is that the paradoxical moments are fun, signs of freedom and motivating both sides.

But that is not to say the rules, they could not be different and consistent, for example 'chess is won by mate or stalemate' while calling those blockaded positions with no check and no king that would have to move into check no longer "stalemate" (where they are subsumed so far, because there is no move and no check) but a "lock" and count them as a draw. Mate would remain the same, stalemate would be all positions where there is no check and the side to play would have to move into check. Both mate and stalemate would win, while those positions with no check and no moves at all would be a lock and count as a draw. Couldn't they?

Looking at the last diagram in #275, if it was black that had just played its pawn to g3, with the rules above black could force a win by stalemate, answering d3 with d6 and d4 with d5. And it is a deserved win, as is a mate where the mated could mate, too, on their next turn, if only they had another turn.

Ask yourself how many times have you been saved from a loss because your opponent stalemated, get over it. If you stalemate, you suck and should learn to read the board better

No, in my opinion it's y(our) failure to checkmate an opponent. I managed to miss a win but I also managed to get the stalemate from tough situation (I'm at low level but still).

Fair enough, but the other guy was saying that here the top should be a winning stalemate while the bottom one should still be a draw:

??????????

I literally posted a legal game getting to that position on the last page!

Well someone claimed that stalemate should only be a win in insufficient mating piece positions if it occurs at the same time as insufficient mating material, otherwise, they claim that insufficient mating material takes priority over future possibility of stalemate.

Basically the person wanted this game to a win:

But this to be a draw:

Even though white could force a stalemate in this game, since it didn't occur on the move like in the 1st position, they say insufficient mating material should still take priority and make it a draw, but if the last move of the game is a stalemating move at the same time that insufficient material is reached, then stalemate should take priority, if I understand what that guy was saying earlier.

According to the original Arabic chess rules, both positions are wins for White.

Well the knight or bishop in a stalemate-win situation would be the same as 2 knights vs king in normal chess, possible but not force able, so draw agreed/declared depending on tournament rules..etc.

In the 2nd case stalemate is force able in 2 moves:

But the other guy was saying only if the stalemate is immediate in an otherwise drawn position should it count as a win, which is like circular reasoning. If stalemate is a win then checkmate doesn't have to be possible in the first place..etc.

The issue is that some claim stalemate should be a loss by forfeit, which isn't the same as taking the king. That would account for positions where the king isn't in danger of being taken the next move but simply cannot move due to occupied squares around it. But if stalemate is a forfeit, then once insufficient mating material is reached, then both sides are immediately relieved of the obligation to make legal moves, so neither side has to move, so forfeit is irrelevant. But then again if stalemate is a valid way to win, checkmate no longer has to be possible, so insufficient mating material ends up not applying, but it should apply due to the added definition of it being a forfeit..etc, and there's is no way to resolve this issue, it's like a paradox. And that is why stalemate should stay a draw, no self-contradictory rules, no circular reasoning, no different stalemates being different results depending on the type of stalemate, it's just a draw period, end of discussion, and is consistent that way. The problem is people who want stalemate to be a win aren't thinking it through. They just think of a queen stalemating a king in the corner without a check. They don't think of the other examples I keep posting which show how when you take into account other stalemates, you get those logical paradoxes.

Gee whiz. Seventeen pages of endlessly circular arguments. The things some people worry about .....

And according to Arabic chess rules the queen moves one space diagonally, the bishop moved two spaces diagonally (jumping over a piece if one was there), pawns couldn't move two squares on the first move and could only promote to a queen, castling didn't exist, and capturing all of the opponent's pieces except the king was a win (unless that king could capture your last piece on the next move).

The world seems to prefer the modern game with all of the changes from original Arabic rules.

Further proof stalemate and insufficient mating material should remain draws!

Please delete the thread.

Stalemate just had to be invented. After regular day chess came out, the idea was the rules were better. Checkmate was invented at this time. The king not in check but having no moves is simply not checkmate. Therefore they probably called it a draw and named it "Stalemate".

NEVER!

you guys are lucky I don't post everyday until stalemate is abolished!

You would be banned if you did.

People who want stalemate banned or a win(for the person who got stalemated )usually suck at avoiding stalemate

Personally if you want to argue who should get the win (my opinion nobody should ) the person who did the stalemating should win so you actually have to checkmate instead of making useless moves up too much material

It's a coping mechanism

The stalematED person winning?? What on Earth is the reasoning behind that?