Why stalemate should be a win.

OK, I see this argument has risen from the dead again, which seems to happen once every year or so.  From my observation, the thread follows a familiar pattern.  First someone proposes that stalemates should be wins, to which the pro-stalematers offer their arguments on why stalemate=draw is the best possible rule.  When the stalemate=win advocate persists, the pro-stalematers liberally douse him with gratuitous cheap shots.  Sometimes that ends the argument, but IMO it shouldn't.  I think there are many anti-stalematers out there, and it's time they started coming out of the closet.  Don't be ashamed, guys.  You're in good company -- there are even really good players who think stalemate=draw is a dumb idea.  For example, grandmaster Larry Kaufman writes, "In my view, calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents the ultimate zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken."  Or, we can quote the British master T. H. Tylor, who argued in a 1940 article in the British Chess Magazine that the present rule, treating stalemate as a draw, "is without historical foundation and irrational, and primarily responsible for a vast percentage of draws, and hence should be abolished."

So, to all you stalemate=draw folks: Sorry, but the rule is clearly illogical. One of the basic rules in chess is that you must make a move when it is your turn, even if every move available to you fatally compromises your position. They even have a word for it: "zugzwang" - the compulsion to move.  So, why shouldn't stalemate be a kind of "zugzwang checkmate," as suggested by Kaufman, where a player, under compulsion to move, must give up in lieu of throwing his king to the wolves?

As for those who think getting rid of stalemates would be bad because it would tend to simplify the endgame, well, actually that is flat wrong.  The truth is, making stalemates a win would make endgame technique harder -- seriously.  It's true that K+P vs K would be easier, but K+R+P vs K+R would be tougher.  Now, you may think that, without the draw by stalemate, winning a K+R+P vs K+R endgame is accomplished by forcing a rook exchange, but the fact is this is impossible -- in most drawn K+R+P vs K+R positions, the defender can avoid the exchange of rooks and still maintain a drawn position.  In summary, maintaining a draw is trickier (translation: your technique will need to be better) but K+R+P vs K+R is still drawn for most positions in the general case, while a fair percentage of K+R+P vs K+R positions become winnable.  By the way, most rook and pawn endgames where a player can draw a pawn down would still be drawable.  That tells me gambits would not go out of business. 

To give another example, K+B vs K or K+N vs K would now be winnable in some situations, but not the general case -- everything would depend on how close the opposing king is to the corner.  But then, if your intent is to make the game as complex as possible, here's a proposal I've seen that you should love: make a stalemate worth more than a draw but less than a win.  For example, when a stalemate occurs, give .7 to the stalemater and .3 to the player with no moves.  This idea retains the idea of stalemate for the purists, adds a level of complexity to the game, and reduces the number of half-point draws.  Regardless of how you think the stalemate rule can be modified, please don't give the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument.  Other sports tweak their rules all the time, and there is no reason chess shouldn't do the same. 

I like stalemate, it's good for a laugh in my view and chess is a game for very serious people for whom a smile would crack their face.

However, if I got caught out repeatedly by stalemate when four Queens up in the endgame, I would probably change my mind given that the boot would now be on the other foot.

Also, a side note to those trying to muddy the waters by mentioning mutual stalemates:

In a mutual stalemate, the player on move loses, as he is the one who has to move his king first, presumably to his death.  It's essentially the same logic you'd use in the following scenario: Two six-year-olds are playing chess.  The first one checkmates the second one.  However, rather than concede, the second player makes a move to checkmate the first player.  Who won the game?  Obviously the first six-year-old - his next move will be to capture the opposing king. He did the king capture first, so he wins.     

if any thing the stalemated player should win as the opponent failed to capture his king(the object of the game)

if any thing the stalemated player should win as the opponent failed to capture his king(the object of the game)

And does the player who puts his King en prise lose also?

No, that's an illegal move. He has to make a legal move. If he refuses to make a legal move, or is unable to do so, logically he loses the game by forfeit.

The game of chess may be ancient, but the universal rule of stalemate = draw is far from ancient. It dates back to the 19th century. Prior to that, a stalemate was treated differently at different times and/or in different places, with the most common rule being that it was a loss for the player who is in stalemate (which isn't surprising, considering it is the only logical result of a stalemate).

So, if you had lived in the 19th century and upon hearing the proposal that the rule should be changed so that stalemate is now a draw instead of a win/loss scenario, you could have said to them:

"Stop trying to change an ancient game that has been around for centuries."

By tacitly referring to several notable people in the world of chess as "utter morons", ironically, you have established yourself as an "utter moron". Well done. Also, your attempted crystal ball reading is laughable.

False. It would simply be a loss by forfeit, no different than any other loss by forfeit. The stalemated player can't make a legal move by definition, thus, logically, he forfeits the game. You can either have him accept his forfeit immediately, or wait for the inevitable conclusion, i.e., his clock running out of time while he sits there not being able to make a legal move, and it becomes a time forfeit. Either way, it is obviously a forfeit, you know, because he isn't making a move, nor will he ever, no different than someone who didn't show up for the game at all, or simply got up in the middle of a game and went home.

So you also think it is absurd when a player is awarded a win because his opponent forfeited the game? When a player doesn't show up for the game, his opponent wins despite not checkmating the king. The same applies to when a player runs out of time or simply quits. This is because they can not or will not make a move, which is exactly the same thing which happens in stalemate, i.e., one player can not make a move, thus, logically, he forfeits the game.

Absolutely. "Forfeit" is a pretty much universal concept in games/sports. If you can't or won't play a game which you agreed to play, you forfeit the game, and your opponent wins, regardless of what objectives he has or has not completed.

If you can't even checkmate your opponent when they can't move any pieces, do you deserve to win? This is basically an argument to take all skill away from the endgame.

So your argument is that if you do not checkmate your opponent, you should not win, but rather, it should be a draw. In that case:

If I play you and I resign, it is a draw, because you didn't checkmate my king.

If I agree to play you and I don't show up for the game, it is a draw, because you didn't checkmate my king.

If I play you and my time runs out, it is a draw, because you didn't checkmate my king.

Talk about "taking away skill from the endgame"; those scenarios don't even necessarily have an endgame.

So a King that is in stalemate must make an illegal move then? And this is why stalemate was invented, its all about eliminating the barbarian aspect of capturing (killing) the king. People from the times of when the chess moves were invented had more honour and dignity than those in modern times. The US just kill Osama bin Laden, for example.

Think about it from a war point of view, because chess is a war game. Let's say your army is outnumbered and surrounded in a castle. If your King is safe in his castle and the enemy refuse to attack, would you go outside to meet them to be checkmated, or just keep the status quo of a stalemate? ) And do the enemy win by not attacking you but just sitting outside of the castle?

To win a game one needs to attack the king (check). Without this, there is no win on the board.

No. Where did you get that idea? Certainly not from anything I typed.

When a king is in stalemate it doesn't get moved at all (because it has no legal moves), which is why logically, the player whose king is in stalemate has forfeited the game, because he's not making a move, nor will he ever. That's like asking:

"So a player who has run out of time must make an illegal move then?"

And of course, the answer is no. He can't legally make any further moves because his time ran out, thus he forfeits the game. Likewise, a stalemated player can't legally make any further moves, thus, logically speaking, he forfeits the game.

That's obviously false, as I've already pointed out many times. You can also win if your opponent forfeits, and a player who is stalemated has logically forfeited the game, because he isn't making any moves, nor will he ever. Call it a time forfeit if you want, because that's the inevitable result of not making a move.

Draws are a part of chess; stalemate is a part of chess.

If anyone doesn't like draws, doesn't like stalemate, and doesn't like studying endgames then they should consider playing shogi:

1). Draws almost never occur.

2). There is no check, it is perfectly legal (just unwise) to move one's "king" to a "square" where it can be taken - hence there is no stalemate.

I'm assuming that he bulk of those who want stalemate to be a win feel that this would increase the level of skill in the game (rather than just giving them a cheap win they didn't deserve). Shogi may be your game.

If a mating attack fails, the player who failed to mate is highly likely to get mated themself (due to material "in hand" from drops").

It is nothing like a forfeit. Forfeit is do to refusal. If black is stalemated white can not accomplish the goal of the game --checkmate-- therefore no winner.

If a soccer player misses a last second shot that would have won the game, his team does not win because they had the last attempt.

Really, if we're going to get rid of stalemate we should just say white wins by default. Black can checkmate but white wins because when blackmates he actually didn't cap the king.

Not only is it "like a forfeit", but logically speaking, it is a forfeit, as I've already pointed out and explained numerous times.

Forfeit is do to refusal.

Not necessarily. A forfeit could be due to a heart attack, for example. Or, a common forfeit is a time forfeit. The player who has run out of time is not refusing to move, he simply can not legally move, which is exactly what happens in stalemate. In fact, a time forfeit is the logical conclusion of a stalemate, because someone who is not moving due to having no legal moves will eventually, inevitably, run out of time, thus forfeiting the game.

If black is stalemated white can not accomplish the goal of the game --checkmate-- therefore no winner.

- If black runs out of time, white can not accomplish the goal of the game—checkmate—therefore no winner.

- If black resigns, white can not accomplish the goal of the game—checkmate—therefore no winner.

- If black fails to show up for the game, white can not accomplish the goal of the game—checkmate—therefore no winner.

Given that all of those statements are obviously and demonstrably false, consider the logic of your claim refuted.

If a soccer player misses a last second shot that would have won the game, his team does not win because they had the last attempt.

Really, if we're going to get rid of stalemate we should just say white wins by default. Black can checkmate but white wins because when blackmates he actually didn't cap the king.

This is a non sequitur, and is therefore dismissed.

I love stalemates

And the point of contention is this: a stalemate is not logically a draw.

Consider what would naturally happen if the arbitrary and illogical "stalemate is a draw" rule didn't exist, i.e., if there was no rule whatsoever specifically pertaining to the situation known as "stalemate".

For starters, there is the rule that a player can not "pass" his turn. Second, there is the rule that a player may not make a move which results in his king being in or passing through "check". Third, there is the rule that if one player runs out of time, he loses the game by forfeit, thus his opponent wins.

So, a player who finds himself in the situation that we know as "stalemate" would simply sit there until his time runs out (because he has no other legal option), thus losing by time forfeit. Or, if he were a reasonable man, he would recognize the inevitability of a time forfeit in his situation, and simply resign immediately. Either way, he loses.

Forfeit is do to a player not what on the board, it is what the player does. Get that? The position is not the player refusing to play

Stalemate being "illogical" is a tricky argument.  It has some merit, but then what is logical exactly?  En passant isn't, castling isn't, knights jumping over pieces isn't, drunken bishops that can only move diagonally isn't, etc, etc.  The whole game of chess collapses if we turn to logic.  Stalemate is just part of the rules of chess that we've grown up with.  Why is there a 50-move rule rather than players just carrying in until they agree a draw or one dies of old age?  Why is there a 3-fold repetition rule rather than a 27-fold repetition rule or again waiting for your opponent to die in combat?

Stalemate is due to the player as well; given that what is on the board is determined by the players. Also, your "refusing to play" idea has already been refuted. Refusal to play is incidental to the concept of forfeit (i.e., a forfeit may or may not involve a refusal to play), not fundamental to it.

It isn't a tricky argument. The lack of logic with regard to the "stalemate is a draw" rule pertains to its internal inconsistency, specifically, selectively applying the forfeit concept. If chess were a fictional novel, you could legitimately charge the author with a plot hole in the part about "stalemate" (you could also legitimately charge him with a plot hole in the part about a pinned piece being able to give check, but that's another matter).

Also, it is funny that you mention the 3-fold repetition and 50-move rules, because those are a result of predicting the most likely natural outcome (i.e., lack of progress for either player) and pre-emptively calling it a draw. There is valid reasoning/logic there. But on the other hand, the natural outcome of a stalemate in the absense of a specific stalemate rule, doesn't even have to be predicted, because it is known; inevitable; i.e., time forfeit for the player who has no legal move. And then they make a rule which is at odds with the inevitable natural outcome. This is tantamount to e.g., automatically and arbitrarily awarding white the win in the 50-move and 3-fold repetition rule, which has nothing to do with the most likely natural outcome.

You might want to read my statements a little more carefully. I said when you can't checkmate your opponent. Resigning doesn't mean you can't checkmate them, it means they've decided it's so obvious you will checkmate them they've chosen to give you the win. They aren't declaring stalemate lol.

Once again not showing up for the game doesn't mean you couldn't checkmate them, they just forfeited their right to try and prevent it, giving you the win or an unofficial checkmate.

The same applies for what you said about the time. Really it's sad when your whole argument rests on semantics.

Lastly it does take away from the skill in the endgame. Things that are tricky and require accurate play to not draw become automatic wins. 2 knights can force stalemate, a bishop+knight or a rook can force stalemate easily. A king and pawn can force stalemate or queen. It really makes the endgame pathetic to allow a win with stalemate.