Why no notation for stalemte?

only thing we can't tell is the ones between resign or timed-out.

Actually, I think "$" is a good idea because it almost looks like the hash mark "#" because it already (in writing) has two vertical bars through it, and it's not used for any other meaning, whereas "S" is German for "Springer" (knight). Also, "$" looks like an "S", which would stand for "stalemate."

Before dump

During dump

After dump

Starting from KurtBusch2 's idea:  ! # !  or  % # %  are good candidates. I prefer the latter.

A symbol for stalemate is as unnecessary as a topic about it.

The move creating a stalemate is most often annotated with "??".  But sometimes with "!!", as in Evans vs Reschevsky, US Championship, 1963

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1252040

For those who don't know, there already is a symbol for a loss on time. In games that are lost by time, Informants will often have the following: 1:0 ⊕

⊕ is the symbol for zeitnot or time. When it appears at the end of the game, it signifies that time ran out. There's another symbol for time running out that's also used in some publications, which is an image of chess clocks. If there is no symbol (checkmate, or time), then the inference is that a decisive game ended by resignation.

Exactly. Someone could argue that "1-0" is the same as "mate," except it could also mean "resigns" or "lost on time," so a special mate symbol was created. Just that one symbol "#" makes the situation clear immediately without forcing the reader to examine the board. Imagine if you were just reading a PGN file and were unable to look at the board to know why somebody won: you wouldn't know even if it were a mate unless you had extraordinarily powerful visualization capability and had looked at every move carefully.

A great way to push for a standard for a given stalemate symbol is merely to have someone modify a PGN player program to accept that symbol, then to put that program online, either for download for on a site like this. That should be a trivial coding change, or if somebody wants to pay me to write a PGN player from scratch with that feature (and any other custom features desired) then I'll take them up on it.

I can't believe that some people are taking this seriously. Why would anybody who doesn't have enough interest in "game x" to view it even care why the game was a draw? Obviously if you do view game x and understand the rules of chess (and aren't a complete moron) you can instantly see that a game ended in stalemate.

This thread contains more nonsense than most troll threads. Why are people taking this seriously?

whenever i draw on chess.com, and my rematch offer is declined, i...

Think. Many possibilities. Maybe somebody is doing a statistical study to see how a certain opening ends. Maybe somebody wants to know how a certain feature (doubled pawns, opposite colored bishops, minority attack, etc.) affects the game. (Ideally a good database would have all such common features included along with the game.) Maybe there exists an attack that is guaranteed to draw by pursuit and they want to know which type of draw it was, at a glance, before adding that game to their list of games to analyze. Maybe they remembered reading a game online that ended in a stalemate and they are trying to find that game by narrowing down the possibilities. Many possibilities.

I think we should have a symbol for when we go to the toilet, too.

Don't. Do not do that. You want me to "think"?

Stat study on an opening: there would be no point in distinguishing between draw types for that. Stats on how certain in game strategies affect result: you need to have already looked at the game to know that strat took place. Refute an attack: again, would have to have had a good look at the game already to know that such an attack took place. Narrow down game in a search: when you can tell me how to narrow down searches by in game notation (e.g. searching just for game that ended in checkmate) then I'll give you an even better answer here, until then...

Never tell me to think.

Ok, don't think. I figured it was smart to think during a chess game though.

//

I don't use chess informants so I had no idea such a symbol was employed... but it seems like a worthwhile symbol to me and a worthwhile thing to know it exists.

Having to infer a resignation seems more troublesome than recognizing a stalemate. If a stalemate, however, counted for something besides 1/2-1/2, then I could see the value of a separate designation. But, to me at least, a draw is a draw is a draw.

I would think that check and mate symbols have always been used since both actions are announced but that just a guess on my part.

A slice of bread with green mold. I suggest such an icon for stalemate.

In case you didn't know, the symbol @ is already being used to annotate dropping a piece in crazyhouse/bughouse chess, as in N@e4 for dropping a knight from reserve onto the e4 square.

So far it seems no one has suggested a scheme for noting which color was stalemated White or Black. Obviously the player who can't move is the one stalemated but how would you note that result on a database or say a result sheet where the game score isn't available?

There is zero need to note such things. A draw is a draw and a win is a win, how the status was reached is totally irrelevant unless you are interested in the game, and then you don't need the notation anyway.