Answers.Body: <p>You can search up Armageddon games on chessgames.com or any other database. Black always has drawing odds in those games, so there's bound to be games where black wins by getting stalemated.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-16T10:37:12.173Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-16T10:37:12.173Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Razetime
Body: <p>Here is a quote from Davidson's  &quot;<em>A short history of chess</em>&quot; (<a href="https://www.google.no/search?tbo=p&amp;tbm=bks&amp;q=isbn:0307828298" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Link</a>), chapter 8, which I used in an  <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/17654/during-the-revolutionary-and-napoleonic-era-what-was-the-rule-for-stalemate-in/17658#17658">answer to an earlier question</a>.</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>[...] In Italy, however, from the very beginning, players could not
  accept stalemate as a victory for anybody. They argued that since no
  legal move was possible, the game simply stopped. Consequently in
  medieval Europe four different stalemate rules were simultaneously in
  effect, and travelling players had to agree in advance as to whether
  they were playing by the Spanish (victory for White), French
  (forfeited move for Black), British (victory for Black), or Italian
  (drawn game) rules. The Italian practice eventually spread throughout
  the Continent, partly because of the tremendous influence which Italy
  exercised on all European culture, partly because of the fame of
  Italian chess players, and partly because the rule seemed inherently
  logical. By the end of the eighteenth century every part of Europe
  (except Britain) had agreed that stalemate was a drawn game.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>So in Britain for a long time stalemate was actually a win for the stalemated player.</p>
  <p><strong>Question</strong>: Are there any records of historical chess games from Britain ending with a win by stalemate for the stalemated player?</p>
  <p>Here is a bit more context from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#History_of_the_stalemate_rule" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>The rule in England from about 1600 to 1800 was that stalemate was a loss for the player administering it, a rule that the eminent chess historian H. J. R. Murray believes may have been adopted from Russian chess (Murray 1913:60–61,466). That rule disappeared in England before 1820, being replaced by the French and Italian rule that a stalemate was a drawn game (Murray 1913:391).</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-06-23T22:46:59.230Z
Comments.Text: The first thing I think of is an armageddon game, but that's arguably recent and probably not what you are looking for.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andrew Chin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-06-24T03:26:48.600Z
Comments.Text: Under that rule nobody is going to give stalemate voluntarily, so you're looking for games that end with a combination forcing the opponent to give stalemate. That happens only rarely in modern chess (as a drawing tactic of course); good luck finding one among the relatively small number of recorded games from the early days of chess when the paradoxical stalemate rule was in force.
Comments.UserDisplayName: bof
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-06-24T06:04:30.283Z
Comments.Text: @bof Your comment shows that this rule does not change gameplay much compared to the standard draw rule of today. One exception I can think of is that `Kh8` and `h6` vs `Kf8` would be a win for white after `1. h7!`.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Dag Oskar Madsen
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-06-24T06:17:19.367Z
Comments.Text: @DagOskarMadsen Then maybe we should go back to the old stalemate rule and improve the lot of the sorely oppressed rook's pawns.
Comments.UserDisplayName: bof
Tags: <rules><history><stalemate>
Title: Games won by the stalemated player?
ThreadText: # Games won by the stalemated player?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-06-23)
  
  Here is a quote from Davidson's "*A short history of chess*" ([Link](https://www.google.no/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=isbn:0307828298)), chapter 8, which I used in an [answer to an earlier question](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/17654/during-the-revolutionary-and-napoleonic-era-what-was-the-rule-for-stalemate-in/17658#17658).
  
  > [...] In Italy, however, from the very beginning, players could not
  > accept stalemate as a victory for anybody. They argued that since no
  > legal move was possible, the game simply stopped. Consequently in
  > medieval Europe four different stalemate rules were simultaneously in
  > effect, and travelling players had to agree in advance as to whether
  > they were playing by the Spanish (victory for White), French
  > (forfeited move for Black), British (victory for Black), or Italian
  > (drawn game) rules. The Italian practice eventually spread throughout
  > the Continent, partly because of the tremendous influence which Italy
  > exercised on all European culture, partly because of the fame of
  > Italian chess players, and partly because the rule seemed inherently
  > logical. By the end of the eighteenth century every part of Europe
  > (except Britain) had agreed that stalemate was a drawn game.
  
  So in Britain for a long time stalemate was actually a win for the stalemated player.
  
  **Question**: Are there any records of historical chess games from Britain ending with a win by stalemate for the stalemated player?
  
  Here is a bit more context from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#History_of_the_stalemate_rule):
  
  > The rule in England from about 1600 to 1800 was that stalemate was a loss for the player administering it, a rule that the eminent chess historian H. J. R. Murray believes may have been adopted from Russian chess (Murray 1913:60–61,466). That rule disappeared in England before 1820, being replaced by the French and Italian rule that a stalemate was a drawn game (Murray 1913:391).
  
  **Tags:** rules, history, stalemate
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: The first thing I think of is an armageddon game, but that's arguably recent and probably not what you are looking for.  
  > **username_2**: Under that rule nobody is going to give stalemate voluntarily, so you're looking for games that end with a combination forcing the opponent to give stalemate. That happens only rarely in modern chess (as a drawing tactic of course); good luck finding one among the relatively small number of recorded games from the early days of chess when the paradoxical stalemate rule was in force.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 Your comment shows that this rule does not change gameplay much compared to the standard draw rule of today. One exception I can think of is that `Kh8` and `h6` vs `Kf8` would be a win for white after `1. h7!`.  
  > **username_2**: @DagOskarMadsen Then maybe we should go back to the old stalemate rule and improve the lot of the sorely oppressed rook's pawns.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2020-08-16. Score: 1
  
  You can search up Armageddon games on chessgames.com or any other database. Black always has drawing odds in those games, so there's bound to be games where black wins by getting stalemated.
  
  
  ---
  
  