The importance of stalemate in chess: how chess is completely different from life
I just saw a cute end to a top-level chess game that ended in a forced draw because the would-be losing side managed a swindle by giving away all his pieces by force in order to create a stalemate. If you don’t play chess, a stalemate is what happens when it’s your turn to move and you have no legal moves. You can claim a draw when you are totally trapped in this way. So one way of saving an otherwise losing game, when you are outnumbered and about to be checkmated (losing when your King comes under attack and it’s your move and you cannot stop the check), is to find a brilliant way to be unable to move.
Is this a totally bizarre concept or what? Why was this rule of chess invented anyway? Wouldn’t it make more sense if being trapped meant losing, like it does in real life conflicts?
History of stalemate
Stalemate was apparently standardized to be a draw in the 19th century. Before that, conventions differed on what the outcome of the game was supposed to be.
Now and then, notable chess players have called for the abolishment of his rule, to replace the stalemate with a win for the side that trapped the other side, because this is “logical” and corresponds to what you would expect in war or in some other “real life” situation in which you have pressed hard for a long time, accumulated a lot of force, and can cause your opponent to not be able to move at all.
I like that stalemate is illogical
I’m going to be blunt: I like that stalemate is “illogical”! It creates tremendous difficulty for the side with more material to win in endgames. I like that it gives the underdog a chance to avoid losing by being clever. If stalemate were not a draw, then it would be trivial to win many games in which one side has made a mistake and lost a Pawn, because then all that has to be done is trade everything off until all that remains is a King and Pawn versus King, and declare victory. Stalemate means that the side with the extra Pawn has to work super hard to avoid trading everything off, to avoid just mechanically fighting battles with equal losses on both sides until one Pawn is left.
I like stalemate because in real life, often it is too easy for one side to win just because of an early error by the loser. Chess is not real life, and I like it that way. Stalemate and other rules of chess add bizarre whimsy and creativity to the game, just as the rule of checkmate at all is counter to real life. In real life, you can kill the general of an army and still lose the war. In chess, it’s always like in the movies, on the other hand: you can have a lone hero defy all odds to get at the enemy King and sacrifice everything else for this objective, and have a happy ending. There is something romantic about chess that is part of its appeal to me. Chess is a game of logic but according to weird heroic rules, where sheer material wealth is not enough to guarantee a win.
Conclusion
It is unfortunate that many top-level chess games end in a draw, but to abolish stalemate would change the capricious character of the game in a way that ruins its appeal to me (on a lower level of play).
If you are not a chess player, what do you think of the stalemate rule? If you are a chess player, what do you think of it?
I believe stalemate is a win for the losing opponent. He or she has out smarted the winning opponent to not be able place the losing opponent in checkmate. Why would that be a win to the opponent with the advantage? He or she should have enough skill to avoid such outcomes.
If they had skill, they wouldn't be losing in the first place.
Amen!
Exactly. They likely blundered or surely misplayed at some point. How else did they become so far behind in the first place.
Your comment is bunch of illogical nonsense. How is stalemate a win for the losing opponent if his king is literally in a "you move you are dead" position? How it has outsmarted the winning opponent when is literally losing the Game, and his king is literally trapped? The advantage of the winning opponent was not given to him as a privilege from the start, he played a better game and was able to created the advantage for himself and was able to corner the king of the opponent in a "you move you are dead" position, so he deserves the win 100%. He or she should have enough skill to not lose the game, or put his king in a position of "you move you are dead" position. Instead of making all this illogical claims to defend this illogical rule, just admit the defeat and get better so the next Game you can win. I think this rule was created by losers that were so bitter that better players were beating their asses in a stalemate way.
Because I guess it's like Yu-Gi-Oh and playing some epic trap card type shit. Stupid af though, honestly. Garbage rule. I guess the point becomes not just to beat the opponent, but to avoid the draw at all costs. That said, I'd certainly love to see that rule changed in standard chess and become a kind of alternative or 'house rule' if someone preferred it akin to playing rapid or not.
It's pissing me off that time and time again I outplay someone from the beginning and then suddenly that losing player, by intelligence or accident, gets himself into a stalemate and takes the hard-won victory from me. If you're a loser, that's your problem, and you should take it like a man.
It's an utterly ridiculous rule. I am glad that you are willing to be intellectually honest and state that it is illogical. It is illogical in the extreme. If the objective of the game is to kill the king and I have the king surrounded to the point that anything he does will "kill" him, then I've done what I'm supposed to do and that is a victory. There is no analogy in the real world or any other sport or game where I achieve the objective and somehow am not considered the winner. Every chess player I've spoken to who likes to defend the rule is incapable of defending it with anything other than an appeal to history (which actually fails) or the lame response, "hey...that's the rules...deal with it."
Hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate it, I used to really like chess as a kid (I’m 28 now) and I hadn’t played in a very long time and I wanted a phone game something to do while on the toilet and so on so I decided to pick up chess again downloaded it on my phone solved a few puzzles beat a few bots then I had this game where I had two queens and a rook and I stalemated the bot that had 1 pawn left and I’m now considering never touching the game again deleting the app. Is this what chess players want to happen? You’re losing a lot of new players! Having no moves left should not be rewarded and I can’t think of a single other game where that is also the case. It’s a stupid nerdy rule for nerdy guys that have never been in any real conflicts in life else they would’ve realized how insane the proposition even is. Imagine the cops coming to your hous to arrest you but you lock every window and every door you think they’ll say well played and just leave LMFAO. Or how about you’ve cornered a small platoon and they’ll either starve to death or run up and be mowed down by the maschine gun immediately. What do you think will happen the soldiers just call it a draw and be done with it are you insane? In every other game I’ve ever played limiting your opponents moves is advantageous except for chess..