![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Will people who are changing the image markup please note that in order for the article to make sense, it is necessary to have the second diagram (the Gelfand-Kramnik one) to the right of the part that says "The position to the right..." (in the Gelfand-Kramnik paragraph). I realise that as things stand this means having a certain amount of white-space in the article at certain resolutions. Maybe by shuffling around or adding some text this can be overcome, but it's not worth making nonsense of the article for. -- Camembert
I do not understand why the position in the lower left corner of the first diagram is a stalemate -- if Black is to move, the pawn can capture the queen. -- Zack
At the bottom of the article we have "There have been calls to make a stalemate a win for the stalemater." I don't think I remember hearing anything about this. Who has made such calls, and when? -- Camembert
http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessNews/evans/040726.php
The edit comment was: (you can't move the king on the first few moves, obviously, so do those people believe that all games are instant stalemates?)
I see this misconception all the time in scholastic players, even in tournaments. Even in a tournament 6 days ago. I know it is obvious, but it is still a common misconception. Bubba73 (talk), 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a section about what effects would the change have if a stalemate would be a win for one side. Why does the "Stalemate positions are possible with a king plus a lone bishop or a lone knight against a king." line appear there? It is not about any of the effects of a possible rule change. I have once deleted it, but it was reverted because "it is true and stalemate is possible with king+bishop or king+knight against king". I know it is possible, but it is irrelevant! We were talking about the effects of possible rule change could have on the endgame. So I suggest again to remove that line. It can only cause confusion. -- V. Szabolcs 13:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleted the line concerning king and two knights v king because:
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Also added a "citation needed" to the comment on the Saavedra position, since that is also missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Rattigan ( talk • contribs)
Deleted the line concerning king and pawn v king because:
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Deleted the final sentence, "If the proposed rule change were made, both of these situations would become wins for the superior side instead of draws.", because:
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Martin Rattigan ( talk) 01:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Why do I need to create a new section, what's wrong with this one? I've described the problems (i.e. what I've deleted is both unreferenced and incorrect). Feel free to fix it. Anything I insert will be immediately deleted anyway, so there's not much point in me trying. Martin Rattigan ( talk) 02:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
And the remedy, if material is deleted that is patently false and has no citation, so should not have been there in the first place, is not to immediately reinstate it. Martin Rattigan ( talk) 02:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted the line concerning king and pawn v king because:
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Martin Rattigan ( talk) 10:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Changed "If the defending king is cornered, a single bishop or knight may be able to stalemate the king, although these cannot be forced in general" to "One knight or one bishop may be able to bring about a stalemate". This may be slightly misleading, but it's all the reference actually says. The replaced text was also misleading, because the stalemate can be forced either way for example in the positions below:
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
It cannot of course be forced from any KBK or KNK position because that would require at least two ply and the position is already dead.
-- Martin Rattigan ( talk) 11:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted the line concerning king rook v king and bishop because:
These are the first two diagrams in the rook v bishop section in Fine,
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
How would Black force stalemate from either of those?
There are 4,169,048 positions in the endgame that are won for White in the standard KRKB game. Obviously Black cannot force stalemate in any of those. -- Martin Rattigan ( talk) 15:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The current lede's final paragraph describes the more general usage of the term, outside of its chess meaning (although they are obviously related). In principle, this should best be handled by breaking out the term into two distinct pages. Now, if we do this, we have three fourfive options as I see it.
Now clearly I do not espouse (4). Given that currently there are only two possible content pages, I think an explicit disambiguation page is overkill. In lieu of that, this leaves having just the two pages, with the top note about the other usage on both. But here is where I am not clear: which should be the default page? In general, the general language usage page should be in most cases, with the more specific (chess) one referred to in the top message (option 2). But in this case, the chess article is far more developed, and because of this I assume this usage is searched for far more than the general usage. This suggests option (3) is preferable.
I do feel strongly that some action here will improve the encyclopedia, vs. leaving this as it is. But I would like some discussion before I do anything as rash as these. Thoughts? Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Zugzwang is in a very similar situation. There is some discussion in the introduction about Zugzwang in game theory, but the bulk of the article is about chess, and is in one long section "Zugzwang in chess". Bubba73 (talk), 17:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
“ | Stalemate is a situation in
chess where the player whose turn it is to move has no legal moves but is not in
check.
"Stalemate" has become a widely used metaphor for other situations where there is a conflict or contest between two parties, such as war or political negotiations, and neither side is able to achieve victory, resulting in what is also called a dead heat, standoff, or deadlock. Unlike in chess, this usage allows for the situation to be a temporary one and thus ultimately resolved, even if it seems currently intractable. In "normal" chess, Stalemate ends the game, with the result a draw. Often during the endgame the player who is behind in material seeks stalemate in order to avoid losing the game. In certain chess variants, such as suicide chess, stalemate is not necessarily a draw. Depending on the variant, stalemate can be a win for either the player with fewer pieces (a draw results if the players have the same number of pieces) or for the stalemated player. |
” |
With no clear consensus to rename at the moment, I'm going to take out the "Stalemate in chess" section header, and make the bulk of the article about chess. It may be renamed, etc later. Bubba73 (talk), 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Since stalemate is such basic concept, the article needs to be clear to beginners. I suggest the relevant diagrams should all show how the unoccupied squares around the Black K are "in check" - example to right.
The next diagram gave me spots before the eyes, and would bewilder a beginner - "how many kings?" I think they should be split. They could then be displayed in a row, by wrapping them in a table. Or they could be displayed vertically on the right but wrapped in show/hide boxes with captions to which the text can refer. -- Philcha ( talk) 10:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Space could also be saved by putting positions from the same game side by side - can't remember whether ther are 2 or 3 instances. Again it's a table. Would you like me to try this out? -- Philcha ( talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Since this is listed as "top importance", I think we should get it to GA class. I think it is at least close now. Bubba73 (talk), 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added more comments, at the appropriate places in the list above. Sorry for being such a pain - I should have been more attentive the first time. -- Philcha ( talk) 08:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy with the outcome.
I've also pushed the simple examples down a bit so that the 1st 2 are just above the section in the dead space beside the TOC and the lower 2 are alongside the text. This is the best compromise I can find: higher forces the user to scroll up out of the text to see al of the top2 diagrams; lower creates huge whitespace after the section.
I have a wide monitor, and have tested the layout at full width, my normal browser window width and a bit narrower. The layout looks OK to me in Firefox, Internet Explorer (not sure if 6 or 7, I don't normally use IE) and Opera, all under Win XP SP2. That selection covers over 95% of the browser market.
By far the most important browser on which I can't test the layout is Safari on the Mac. It would be helpful if someone could test it on this.
If anyone wants to adjust the vertical position of these diagrams, the controller is style="margin-top:250px"
- increase the number for down, decrease for up. --
Philcha (
talk)
10:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I look at the examples from a different angle. I add four of the six examples in the section on examples from games (not including desperado). I might have had a little to do with the desperado section, but it was mostly or all done by Krakatoa.
For examples, some of my criteria are:
I think the Gelfand-Kramnik and Williams-Harrwitz games were already in the article when I added the other four in that section, along and along. I added Anand-Kramnik because of some of the criteria above, but also I put it first because it is a simple example of the defender having more than a king. I also think it is interesting because Black is forced to stalemate White, otherwise he actually loses! I added Korchnoi-Karpov, and before I added Anand-Kramnik, this was the first example at that point. You are right about it being an intentional spite stalemate, and it is interesting, with an interesting story. I made it second because it is more complicated than Anand-Kramnik because of references to fortress and wrong rook pawn. I left Gelfand-Kramnik alone (actually it is sort of a despardo.) I added Bernstein-Smyslov because it is interesting that the defending king is not on the edge of the board. then Matulovic-Minev is sort of a sequel to it in Minev's book; he talked about the blunder by Smyslov and how this one didn't involve a blunder. I left Williams-Harrwitz alone, putting it last because it is the most complex.
So those were my thoughts on those examples.
I think I had only a little to do with the desperado section. I think these are quite distinct from the others, and there is a main article about them, and I think it should stay a section.
Of course, we are not married to this structure or these examples. We all are here to improve the article. Bubba73 (talk), 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not in favor of the move of the history section from near the end to being the first section, for two reasons (1) I think most readers would rather go directly into some more simple examples than the history of the rule, and (2) with the simple examples section first, the diagrams can be placed to use the space more effectively (to the side of the TOC). Bubba73 (talk), 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bubba73 (talk), 03:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a well-done article. Should we nominate it for A-class? Krakatoa ( talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
The text says. "even if it were White's move, there is no way to avoid this stalemate without allowing Black's pawn to promote. But he might be able to win the Q-vs-Q ending ...". As far as I can see in diagram 4, White to move wins by 1. Qc3+ Kb1; 2. Kd3 when 2. ... a1(Q) allows mate and Black must under-promote to N, after which White should win. Did I get the calculation right? -- Philcha ( talk) 00:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
"This rule will often upset you when playing a game of chess with your father and you are about to dominate him, but then this stalemate crap comes up and ruins all your happiness." My father died when I was young and I've never played chess in my life. (not really, but statements that address the reader as "you" are weird and someone should change this...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.39.202 ( talk) 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Quote: "Stalemate has become a widely used metaphor for other situations where there is a conflict or contest between two parties, such as war or political negotiations, and neither side is able to achieve victory, resulting in what is also called a dead heat, standoff, or deadlock. Golombek and Soltis note that this usage is a misnomer since, unlike in chess, the situation is often a temporary one that is ultimately resolved, even if it seems currently intractable."
Soltis notes that another Chess term can be used: Such situations ought to be termed, e.g., "A political Zugswang" rather than "a politrical stalemate." WHPratt ( talk) 16:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's the reference:
WHPratt ( talk) 14:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed a short phrase containing a personal attack. Most likely a random piece of vandalism but someone may want to keep an eye out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.161.115 ( talk) 18:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
How does it not affects endgame theory? Doesn't it currently says that a bare king can't win? I know it can't be forced, but the king and knight/bishop can't either and they are here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.89.43 ( talk) 19:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
It can't be forced in general, but there are positions in which stalemate can be forced, for instance this one on the left: 1.Nd7 Kh8 2. Nf6, stalemate. Back up from the king and pawn versus king position you gave, and you have to blunder to get stalemated stalemate.
A second reason is that it is in the reference. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The history section is too long. I don't see the need to talk about countless variations of the rule when all the section needs to highlight are it's origins and the current format it is used in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.82.13 ( talk) 01:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This section needs a source for the analysis. I searched through most of my books that are indexed by players and I didn't find it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
My first post on wikipedia, so excuse me if this is not the right procedure.
Under #More_complicated_examples, it is stated "The game would inevitably end in a draw by agreement, by threefold repetition, or by an eventual claim under the fifty-move rule (Averbakh 1996:80–81)."
Part of threefold repetition is that the position does not have to occur in succession. I don't think Evans could make a draw by the 50-move rule, because the game would proceed thus:
50. Rxg7+ Kh8 Rh7 Kg8 Rg7 Kf8 Rf7 Ke8 Re7 Kd8 55. Rd7 Kc8 Rc7 Kb8 Rb7 Ka8 Ra7 Kb8 Rb7 Kc8 60. Rc7 Kd8 Rd7 Ke8 Re7 Kf8 Rf7 Kg8 Rg7 Kh8 65. Rh7 Kg8 Rg7 draw
Because 50. Rxg7 was a capture, we start counting from there, although there are several ways to defend, the longest way is only 16 moves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudapri ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Roycroft problem solution was mixed up, I think I straighted it out, someone w/ the source material s/ confirm, however. Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to mention something like "'stalemate' is a member of the class of situations known as 'draw'" but I don't think I can write it clearly. ( talk) 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Did the sources mention any other endgames? It would be nice to mention the impact on R+P vs. R, as it's so common. Double sharp ( talk) 05:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
OK. Another point: how would this often-proposed rule (stalemate becomes a win because any move would get your king taken) change affect this position?
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
(I copied this from a 2002 comment in the Chess Variant Pages). White is stalemated, but only because he is blocked: he cannot move his king, not even into check. Double sharp ( talk) 02:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
George Jelliss, in an article in Variant Chess 4, gives terms for this kind of thing:
A position in which there is no legal move, is a mate. If the player to move is in check the position is a checkmate, if not it is a stalemate. [The term "mate" unfortunately tends to be used also as an abbreviation for "checkmate", so that its own meaning gets lost.]
A special type of mate is a lock in which no move is possible (i.e. considerations of avoiding self-check are not involved). Lock with check is checklock, a special case of checkmate, while lock without check is deadlock, a special case of stalemate. In checklock a player is forced to leave his King in check – but this is not an illegal move, since it is not a "move" at all.— George Jelliss
He notes without explanation that A good case has also been made for checklock to be considered a draw.
I can only assume that he is imagining taking Kaufman's logic to the letter: in normal checkmates and stalemates, any move would get your king taken. But in checklocks and deadlocks, there are no moves, and so your king never gets taken...
(For a checklock position, take the deadlock at the start of this section, and add a Black knight on f7. This is basically Wolfgang Heidenfeld's 1956 construction, only on e8–h8 instead of e1–h1, and with colours reversed.) Double sharp ( talk) 09:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What are some examples of positions in which one side forces stalemate on the opponent (so the opponent has no moves) because all other strategies lose? I found some artificial positions but they are very artificial. Also are there any known cases of this happening in tournament play? The positions I found go only one move deep. That is, one move forces stalemate on the opponent and all other moves lose. It seems plausible there are examples with greater move depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synesthetic ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Synesthetic ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Forced self-stalemates are impossible in chess today because the position would already be dead (impossibility of checkmate) and the game would be over. Double sharp ( talk) 05:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
about what chess would be like if stalemate were counted as a loss for the player in stalemate. From the viewpoint of how Chess is actually played today, however, much more logical (however illogical on the very first view) would be to treat it as a win (or "two points out of three") for the stalemated player (maybe with exception of "real draws" such as king and pawn versus king in not-winning position etc.), to punish the negligence of the stalemater (at least when I play it is usually that) and to reward the fact he has been able to safe himself into a stalemate. Is there no discussion around what the effect of such a change were?-- 131.159.76.173 ( talk) 13:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Two knights and a king can force checkmate a lone king in this rule. Do you know any other endgames be affected by this alternative rule? -- Ticgame ( talk) 08:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be interesting to have a diagram of a situation that is not only stalemate, but would remain stalemate if the king could move into check? It might be interesting considering that some of the quoted comments suggesting stalemate should be a win seems to disregard that case. MathHisSci ( talk) 20:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
I think the term stalemate, in common usage, refers to a no-win situation more than the specific chess scenario. As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it might be a good move to move the page to " Stalemate (chess)". I think it's OK to keep stalemate redirecting to that, rather than replacing it with the disambiguation page; but that way it's clear (e.g. in the visual editor) that this article is about stalemates in chess. What are your thoughts, everyone? -- Daviddwd ( talk) 14:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Larry Kaufman's statement that with a stalemate "any move would get your king taken" overlooks another type of stalemate where there is no move that would get your king taken, simply because there are no moves at all…a blockaded position. In discussing how stalemates should be scored, I believe these two types could be treated differently. 108.20.114.62 ( talk) 21:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Bottom line: Kaufman made a mistake in overlooking the kind of stalemate where a move into check is not possible because no move is possible. A mistake cannot be ignored simply by saying that to acknowledge it is original research, not when that mistake is plainly demonstrable, as it is in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.189.176 ( talk) 16:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted the line - see section 3, "Effect on endgames" for details. Martin Rattigan ( talk) 10:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Changed the text. See section 3, "Effect on endgames" for details. -- Martin Rattigan ( talk) 11:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted the line. See section 3, "Effect on endgames" for details. -- Martin Rattigan ( talk) 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted the line, "In diagram 5, Black had forced the position to become stalemate, seeing that the white bishop could not force the black king to go away from the queening square of the rook pawn.", because:
Deleted the sentences, "In that position, even if it were White's move, there is no way to avoid this stalemate without allowing Black's pawn to promote. (White may be able to win the resulting queen versus queen ending, however, if the white king is close enough).", because:
(a) To the sentence, "In more complex positions, stalemate is much rarer, usually taking the form of a swindle that succeeds only if the superior side is inattentive." Obviously needs one. Don't know the status in terms of truth, suspect no survey has ever been undertaken. (b) To the sentence, "Some regional chess variants have not allowed a player to play a stalemating move.". Obviously needs one and seems improbable. What would happen in this White to play position for example? Or would Black's last move count as stalemate itself, in which case how far might you need to look ahead to determine if a move was not allowed?
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
(c) To several sentences in the double stalemate section. (No sources given.)
Directing tournaments among children at neighborhood libraries, I used to see stalemates all the time. I admit, though, the players didn't always notice it or deal with it appropriately, unless the director was right there. Just an amusing recollection.
I think we should be very careful about declaring what is "common" and what is "rare". But it would be appropriate at this point to clarify why stalemate isn't a good generic synonym for draw, i.e. there are also draws by repetition, draws by insufficient material, and draws by agreement. Bruce leverett ( talk) 22:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
When both stalemate and bare king were victories, I really wonder how this position (taken from this chessvariants.com comment) would have been evaluated. In today's chess the only move to draw is 1.Nc2+!, forcing 1...Rxc2+ 2.Kxc2 stalemate. However, when bare king was a victory, 1...Rxc2+ would seem to be a win for Black, because White cannot immediately bare the Black king in retaliation. This also seems unfair, however, because at the time stalemate was also a victory for the stalemating player, and after 2.Kxc2 Black is forced to commit suicide. Unfortunately I cannot recall this situation discussed in any source: I suspect that "legalistically" it would have been a Black win back then, but that if it had ever come up, someone would probably have made an argument. So I put it on this talk page in case someone ever finds an RS discussion of this situation. Double sharp ( talk) 18:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Steelmate has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Steelmate until a consensus is reached.
Rusalkii (
talk)
21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Will people who are changing the image markup please note that in order for the article to make sense, it is necessary to have the second diagram (the Gelfand-Kramnik one) to the right of the part that says "The position to the right..." (in the Gelfand-Kramnik paragraph). I realise that as things stand this means having a certain amount of white-space in the article at certain resolutions. Maybe by shuffling around or adding some text this can be overcome, but it's not worth making nonsense of the article for. -- Camembert
I do not understand why the position in the lower left corner of the first diagram is a stalemate -- if Black is to move, the pawn can capture the queen. -- Zack
At the bottom of the article we have "There have been calls to make a stalemate a win for the stalemater." I don't think I remember hearing anything about this. Who has made such calls, and when? -- Camembert
http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessNews/evans/040726.php
The edit comment was: (you can't move the king on the first few moves, obviously, so do those people believe that all games are instant stalemates?)
I see this misconception all the time in scholastic players, even in tournaments. Even in a tournament 6 days ago. I know it is obvious, but it is still a common misconception. Bubba73 (talk), 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a section about what effects would the change have if a stalemate would be a win for one side. Why does the "Stalemate positions are possible with a king plus a lone bishop or a lone knight against a king." line appear there? It is not about any of the effects of a possible rule change. I have once deleted it, but it was reverted because "it is true and stalemate is possible with king+bishop or king+knight against king". I know it is possible, but it is irrelevant! We were talking about the effects of possible rule change could have on the endgame. So I suggest again to remove that line. It can only cause confusion. -- V. Szabolcs 13:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleted the line concerning king and two knights v king because:
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Also added a "citation needed" to the comment on the Saavedra position, since that is also missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Rattigan ( talk • contribs)
Deleted the line concerning king and pawn v king because:
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Deleted the final sentence, "If the proposed rule change were made, both of these situations would become wins for the superior side instead of draws.", because:
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Martin Rattigan ( talk) 01:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Why do I need to create a new section, what's wrong with this one? I've described the problems (i.e. what I've deleted is both unreferenced and incorrect). Feel free to fix it. Anything I insert will be immediately deleted anyway, so there's not much point in me trying. Martin Rattigan ( talk) 02:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
And the remedy, if material is deleted that is patently false and has no citation, so should not have been there in the first place, is not to immediately reinstate it. Martin Rattigan ( talk) 02:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted the line concerning king and pawn v king because:
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Martin Rattigan ( talk) 10:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Changed "If the defending king is cornered, a single bishop or knight may be able to stalemate the king, although these cannot be forced in general" to "One knight or one bishop may be able to bring about a stalemate". This may be slightly misleading, but it's all the reference actually says. The replaced text was also misleading, because the stalemate can be forced either way for example in the positions below:
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
It cannot of course be forced from any KBK or KNK position because that would require at least two ply and the position is already dead.
-- Martin Rattigan ( talk) 11:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted the line concerning king rook v king and bishop because:
These are the first two diagrams in the rook v bishop section in Fine,
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
How would Black force stalemate from either of those?
There are 4,169,048 positions in the endgame that are won for White in the standard KRKB game. Obviously Black cannot force stalemate in any of those. -- Martin Rattigan ( talk) 15:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The current lede's final paragraph describes the more general usage of the term, outside of its chess meaning (although they are obviously related). In principle, this should best be handled by breaking out the term into two distinct pages. Now, if we do this, we have three fourfive options as I see it.
Now clearly I do not espouse (4). Given that currently there are only two possible content pages, I think an explicit disambiguation page is overkill. In lieu of that, this leaves having just the two pages, with the top note about the other usage on both. But here is where I am not clear: which should be the default page? In general, the general language usage page should be in most cases, with the more specific (chess) one referred to in the top message (option 2). But in this case, the chess article is far more developed, and because of this I assume this usage is searched for far more than the general usage. This suggests option (3) is preferable.
I do feel strongly that some action here will improve the encyclopedia, vs. leaving this as it is. But I would like some discussion before I do anything as rash as these. Thoughts? Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Zugzwang is in a very similar situation. There is some discussion in the introduction about Zugzwang in game theory, but the bulk of the article is about chess, and is in one long section "Zugzwang in chess". Bubba73 (talk), 17:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
“ | Stalemate is a situation in
chess where the player whose turn it is to move has no legal moves but is not in
check.
"Stalemate" has become a widely used metaphor for other situations where there is a conflict or contest between two parties, such as war or political negotiations, and neither side is able to achieve victory, resulting in what is also called a dead heat, standoff, or deadlock. Unlike in chess, this usage allows for the situation to be a temporary one and thus ultimately resolved, even if it seems currently intractable. In "normal" chess, Stalemate ends the game, with the result a draw. Often during the endgame the player who is behind in material seeks stalemate in order to avoid losing the game. In certain chess variants, such as suicide chess, stalemate is not necessarily a draw. Depending on the variant, stalemate can be a win for either the player with fewer pieces (a draw results if the players have the same number of pieces) or for the stalemated player. |
” |
With no clear consensus to rename at the moment, I'm going to take out the "Stalemate in chess" section header, and make the bulk of the article about chess. It may be renamed, etc later. Bubba73 (talk), 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Since stalemate is such basic concept, the article needs to be clear to beginners. I suggest the relevant diagrams should all show how the unoccupied squares around the Black K are "in check" - example to right.
The next diagram gave me spots before the eyes, and would bewilder a beginner - "how many kings?" I think they should be split. They could then be displayed in a row, by wrapping them in a table. Or they could be displayed vertically on the right but wrapped in show/hide boxes with captions to which the text can refer. -- Philcha ( talk) 10:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Space could also be saved by putting positions from the same game side by side - can't remember whether ther are 2 or 3 instances. Again it's a table. Would you like me to try this out? -- Philcha ( talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Since this is listed as "top importance", I think we should get it to GA class. I think it is at least close now. Bubba73 (talk), 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added more comments, at the appropriate places in the list above. Sorry for being such a pain - I should have been more attentive the first time. -- Philcha ( talk) 08:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy with the outcome.
I've also pushed the simple examples down a bit so that the 1st 2 are just above the section in the dead space beside the TOC and the lower 2 are alongside the text. This is the best compromise I can find: higher forces the user to scroll up out of the text to see al of the top2 diagrams; lower creates huge whitespace after the section.
I have a wide monitor, and have tested the layout at full width, my normal browser window width and a bit narrower. The layout looks OK to me in Firefox, Internet Explorer (not sure if 6 or 7, I don't normally use IE) and Opera, all under Win XP SP2. That selection covers over 95% of the browser market.
By far the most important browser on which I can't test the layout is Safari on the Mac. It would be helpful if someone could test it on this.
If anyone wants to adjust the vertical position of these diagrams, the controller is style="margin-top:250px"
- increase the number for down, decrease for up. --
Philcha (
talk)
10:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I look at the examples from a different angle. I add four of the six examples in the section on examples from games (not including desperado). I might have had a little to do with the desperado section, but it was mostly or all done by Krakatoa.
For examples, some of my criteria are:
I think the Gelfand-Kramnik and Williams-Harrwitz games were already in the article when I added the other four in that section, along and along. I added Anand-Kramnik because of some of the criteria above, but also I put it first because it is a simple example of the defender having more than a king. I also think it is interesting because Black is forced to stalemate White, otherwise he actually loses! I added Korchnoi-Karpov, and before I added Anand-Kramnik, this was the first example at that point. You are right about it being an intentional spite stalemate, and it is interesting, with an interesting story. I made it second because it is more complicated than Anand-Kramnik because of references to fortress and wrong rook pawn. I left Gelfand-Kramnik alone (actually it is sort of a despardo.) I added Bernstein-Smyslov because it is interesting that the defending king is not on the edge of the board. then Matulovic-Minev is sort of a sequel to it in Minev's book; he talked about the blunder by Smyslov and how this one didn't involve a blunder. I left Williams-Harrwitz alone, putting it last because it is the most complex.
So those were my thoughts on those examples.
I think I had only a little to do with the desperado section. I think these are quite distinct from the others, and there is a main article about them, and I think it should stay a section.
Of course, we are not married to this structure or these examples. We all are here to improve the article. Bubba73 (talk), 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not in favor of the move of the history section from near the end to being the first section, for two reasons (1) I think most readers would rather go directly into some more simple examples than the history of the rule, and (2) with the simple examples section first, the diagrams can be placed to use the space more effectively (to the side of the TOC). Bubba73 (talk), 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bubba73 (talk), 03:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a well-done article. Should we nominate it for A-class? Krakatoa ( talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
The text says. "even if it were White's move, there is no way to avoid this stalemate without allowing Black's pawn to promote. But he might be able to win the Q-vs-Q ending ...". As far as I can see in diagram 4, White to move wins by 1. Qc3+ Kb1; 2. Kd3 when 2. ... a1(Q) allows mate and Black must under-promote to N, after which White should win. Did I get the calculation right? -- Philcha ( talk) 00:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
"This rule will often upset you when playing a game of chess with your father and you are about to dominate him, but then this stalemate crap comes up and ruins all your happiness." My father died when I was young and I've never played chess in my life. (not really, but statements that address the reader as "you" are weird and someone should change this...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.39.202 ( talk) 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Quote: "Stalemate has become a widely used metaphor for other situations where there is a conflict or contest between two parties, such as war or political negotiations, and neither side is able to achieve victory, resulting in what is also called a dead heat, standoff, or deadlock. Golombek and Soltis note that this usage is a misnomer since, unlike in chess, the situation is often a temporary one that is ultimately resolved, even if it seems currently intractable."
Soltis notes that another Chess term can be used: Such situations ought to be termed, e.g., "A political Zugswang" rather than "a politrical stalemate." WHPratt ( talk) 16:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's the reference:
WHPratt ( talk) 14:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed a short phrase containing a personal attack. Most likely a random piece of vandalism but someone may want to keep an eye out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.161.115 ( talk) 18:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
How does it not affects endgame theory? Doesn't it currently says that a bare king can't win? I know it can't be forced, but the king and knight/bishop can't either and they are here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.89.43 ( talk) 19:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
It can't be forced in general, but there are positions in which stalemate can be forced, for instance this one on the left: 1.Nd7 Kh8 2. Nf6, stalemate. Back up from the king and pawn versus king position you gave, and you have to blunder to get stalemated stalemate.
A second reason is that it is in the reference. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The history section is too long. I don't see the need to talk about countless variations of the rule when all the section needs to highlight are it's origins and the current format it is used in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.82.13 ( talk) 01:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This section needs a source for the analysis. I searched through most of my books that are indexed by players and I didn't find it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
My first post on wikipedia, so excuse me if this is not the right procedure.
Under #More_complicated_examples, it is stated "The game would inevitably end in a draw by agreement, by threefold repetition, or by an eventual claim under the fifty-move rule (Averbakh 1996:80–81)."
Part of threefold repetition is that the position does not have to occur in succession. I don't think Evans could make a draw by the 50-move rule, because the game would proceed thus:
50. Rxg7+ Kh8 Rh7 Kg8 Rg7 Kf8 Rf7 Ke8 Re7 Kd8 55. Rd7 Kc8 Rc7 Kb8 Rb7 Ka8 Ra7 Kb8 Rb7 Kc8 60. Rc7 Kd8 Rd7 Ke8 Re7 Kf8 Rf7 Kg8 Rg7 Kh8 65. Rh7 Kg8 Rg7 draw
Because 50. Rxg7 was a capture, we start counting from there, although there are several ways to defend, the longest way is only 16 moves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudapri ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Roycroft problem solution was mixed up, I think I straighted it out, someone w/ the source material s/ confirm, however. Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to mention something like "'stalemate' is a member of the class of situations known as 'draw'" but I don't think I can write it clearly. ( talk) 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Did the sources mention any other endgames? It would be nice to mention the impact on R+P vs. R, as it's so common. Double sharp ( talk) 05:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
OK. Another point: how would this often-proposed rule (stalemate becomes a win because any move would get your king taken) change affect this position?
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
(I copied this from a 2002 comment in the Chess Variant Pages). White is stalemated, but only because he is blocked: he cannot move his king, not even into check. Double sharp ( talk) 02:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
George Jelliss, in an article in Variant Chess 4, gives terms for this kind of thing:
A position in which there is no legal move, is a mate. If the player to move is in check the position is a checkmate, if not it is a stalemate. [The term "mate" unfortunately tends to be used also as an abbreviation for "checkmate", so that its own meaning gets lost.]
A special type of mate is a lock in which no move is possible (i.e. considerations of avoiding self-check are not involved). Lock with check is checklock, a special case of checkmate, while lock without check is deadlock, a special case of stalemate. In checklock a player is forced to leave his King in check – but this is not an illegal move, since it is not a "move" at all.— George Jelliss
He notes without explanation that A good case has also been made for checklock to be considered a draw.
I can only assume that he is imagining taking Kaufman's logic to the letter: in normal checkmates and stalemates, any move would get your king taken. But in checklocks and deadlocks, there are no moves, and so your king never gets taken...
(For a checklock position, take the deadlock at the start of this section, and add a Black knight on f7. This is basically Wolfgang Heidenfeld's 1956 construction, only on e8–h8 instead of e1–h1, and with colours reversed.) Double sharp ( talk) 09:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What are some examples of positions in which one side forces stalemate on the opponent (so the opponent has no moves) because all other strategies lose? I found some artificial positions but they are very artificial. Also are there any known cases of this happening in tournament play? The positions I found go only one move deep. That is, one move forces stalemate on the opponent and all other moves lose. It seems plausible there are examples with greater move depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synesthetic ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Synesthetic ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Forced self-stalemates are impossible in chess today because the position would already be dead (impossibility of checkmate) and the game would be over. Double sharp ( talk) 05:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
about what chess would be like if stalemate were counted as a loss for the player in stalemate. From the viewpoint of how Chess is actually played today, however, much more logical (however illogical on the very first view) would be to treat it as a win (or "two points out of three") for the stalemated player (maybe with exception of "real draws" such as king and pawn versus king in not-winning position etc.), to punish the negligence of the stalemater (at least when I play it is usually that) and to reward the fact he has been able to safe himself into a stalemate. Is there no discussion around what the effect of such a change were?-- 131.159.76.173 ( talk) 13:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Two knights and a king can force checkmate a lone king in this rule. Do you know any other endgames be affected by this alternative rule? -- Ticgame ( talk) 08:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be interesting to have a diagram of a situation that is not only stalemate, but would remain stalemate if the king could move into check? It might be interesting considering that some of the quoted comments suggesting stalemate should be a win seems to disregard that case. MathHisSci ( talk) 20:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
I think the term stalemate, in common usage, refers to a no-win situation more than the specific chess scenario. As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it might be a good move to move the page to " Stalemate (chess)". I think it's OK to keep stalemate redirecting to that, rather than replacing it with the disambiguation page; but that way it's clear (e.g. in the visual editor) that this article is about stalemates in chess. What are your thoughts, everyone? -- Daviddwd ( talk) 14:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Larry Kaufman's statement that with a stalemate "any move would get your king taken" overlooks another type of stalemate where there is no move that would get your king taken, simply because there are no moves at all…a blockaded position. In discussing how stalemates should be scored, I believe these two types could be treated differently. 108.20.114.62 ( talk) 21:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Bottom line: Kaufman made a mistake in overlooking the kind of stalemate where a move into check is not possible because no move is possible. A mistake cannot be ignored simply by saying that to acknowledge it is original research, not when that mistake is plainly demonstrable, as it is in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.189.176 ( talk) 16:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted the line - see section 3, "Effect on endgames" for details. Martin Rattigan ( talk) 10:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Changed the text. See section 3, "Effect on endgames" for details. -- Martin Rattigan ( talk) 11:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted the line. See section 3, "Effect on endgames" for details. -- Martin Rattigan ( talk) 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted the line, "In diagram 5, Black had forced the position to become stalemate, seeing that the white bishop could not force the black king to go away from the queening square of the rook pawn.", because:
Deleted the sentences, "In that position, even if it were White's move, there is no way to avoid this stalemate without allowing Black's pawn to promote. (White may be able to win the resulting queen versus queen ending, however, if the white king is close enough).", because:
(a) To the sentence, "In more complex positions, stalemate is much rarer, usually taking the form of a swindle that succeeds only if the superior side is inattentive." Obviously needs one. Don't know the status in terms of truth, suspect no survey has ever been undertaken. (b) To the sentence, "Some regional chess variants have not allowed a player to play a stalemating move.". Obviously needs one and seems improbable. What would happen in this White to play position for example? Or would Black's last move count as stalemate itself, in which case how far might you need to look ahead to determine if a move was not allowed?
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
(c) To several sentences in the double stalemate section. (No sources given.)
Directing tournaments among children at neighborhood libraries, I used to see stalemates all the time. I admit, though, the players didn't always notice it or deal with it appropriately, unless the director was right there. Just an amusing recollection.
I think we should be very careful about declaring what is "common" and what is "rare". But it would be appropriate at this point to clarify why stalemate isn't a good generic synonym for draw, i.e. there are also draws by repetition, draws by insufficient material, and draws by agreement. Bruce leverett ( talk) 22:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
When both stalemate and bare king were victories, I really wonder how this position (taken from this chessvariants.com comment) would have been evaluated. In today's chess the only move to draw is 1.Nc2+!, forcing 1...Rxc2+ 2.Kxc2 stalemate. However, when bare king was a victory, 1...Rxc2+ would seem to be a win for Black, because White cannot immediately bare the Black king in retaliation. This also seems unfair, however, because at the time stalemate was also a victory for the stalemating player, and after 2.Kxc2 Black is forced to commit suicide. Unfortunately I cannot recall this situation discussed in any source: I suspect that "legalistically" it would have been a Black win back then, but that if it had ever come up, someone would probably have made an argument. So I put it on this talk page in case someone ever finds an RS discussion of this situation. Double sharp ( talk) 18:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Steelmate has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Steelmate until a consensus is reached.
Rusalkii (
talk)
21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)