Answers.Body: <p>I think stalemate is a draw for the same reason that dropping the white ball when potting black is a loss in 8-ball pool - it gives the losing player a granule of hope until the very end, and it ensures that the winner must be clinical in securing his win.</p>
  
  <p>With regards to whether this flows logically from the other rules of the game - chess is, after all, a human made game, not a form of mathematics, so a rule does not have to be logically consistent with all other aspects of the game. If we all agree that a specific rule is good for the game, then we don't need to justify this rule against the logic of other rules (en passant and castling are similar).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-07T03:22:47.987Z
Answers.Text: I think this 8-ball analogy is the most convincing argument I've heard on this point besides "it's tradition". Great answer!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jolly Llama
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-01T09:04:25.910Z
Answers.Text: I don't think that is the reason for your pool example. Logically, dropping the white ball when potting the black has to be a loss : you can't profit from a foul shot, there is no way to continue the game because there is nothing left to pot, and pool doesn't have draws, so what else could it be? Chess is quite different, because (as you say) stalemate being a draw is not the only logical option.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Especially Lime
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-13T07:30:25.977Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-12-13T07:30:25.977Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: firtydank
Answers.Body: <p>As Totero notes, changing stalemate in this fashion would drastically change endgame play. Currently, one must learn how to recognize different King/Pawn endings, and how other pieces interact with these endings. Opposite- vs same-color Bishops, Knight/Pawn vs Knight, Rook/Pawn vs Rook, and other basic variations.</p>
  
  <p>Changing stalemate to a win would throw much of that out the window. Who cares whether White or Black has the opposition? Just run that Pawn down the board. Rook/Pawn vs Rook? No worries, just force a trade, and the win is guaranteed. It might not be fair to say that this would trivialize endgame play in reducing it to mindless exchanges from material superiority, but it would be a drastic change.</p>
  
  <p>Put another way, it takes more skill to calculate and remember ending positions than it does to march one's way to a stalemate, and the stalemate rule is intended to recognize that fact.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-08-13T11:33:44.610Z
Answers.Text: In general it would make the game sharper, harder, not neccessarily a bad thing. You're looking at it as if the game was played with the current rules and then in the endgame they suddenly changed to stalemate=win. Also endgames with pawn imbalance are not all of them. It gets interesting when you consider others, like KvNN (`7K/8/8/8/8/8/8/1N1k3N b - - 0 1` white can force stalemate), KvB, KvBB (same colored) and many others. It would ADD diversity and skill to endgames.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sopel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-01T18:09:55.807Z
Answers.Text: @Sopel KNNvK is such a rare endgame that making it more interesting does not compensate for all the endgames that now become trivial
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-10-17T20:54:00.020Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-08-11T16:50:22.667Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-08-11T16:50:22.667Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jonathan Garber
Answers.Body: <p>I remember reading somewhere once which advocated that stalemate should be (could be) 3/4 point. Unfortunately, a quick google search turned up nothing.</p>
  
  <p>The idea is interesting. It seems that you gained more by stalemating your opponent than you gain if the position is completely equal. By similar logic, the stalemated side seems to have not lost as badly as he would have if he had been checkmated.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-10-18T20:07:36.157Z
Answers.Text: According to wikipedia, that basic idea was in use in 18th century Spain; in terms of betting, a stalemate was considered a "half-win" for the stalemater. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#History_of_the_stalemate_rule
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-10-19T03:15:06.003Z
Answers.Text: @EdDean that is interesting
Answers.UserDisplayName: iMeMyself
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-10-18T19:56:04.470Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-10-18T19:56:04.470Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Christopher von Krogh
Answers.Body: <p>There would definitely be some logic in considering Stalemate a win (after all, the opponent's King <em>has</em> to move and and will be captured on next move, so that <em>should</em> be a win).</p>
  
  <p>However, this would have a huge impact on the whole Chess game. The reason is that, if Stalemate wins, now <strong>all</strong> King+pawn VS King endings are winning. Thus being one pawn ahead, exchanging all the pieces leads to a trivial win. I am not saying it would be bad, just that it would change the game more than you imagine.</p>
  
  <p>For more details on the Stalemate (and on the key position in K+P VS K endings), you can have a look at the following <a href="http://chesstrainerapp.blogspot.com/2013/12/is-it-mate-or-stalemate-introduction.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">blog post</a> I wrote.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-03-19T20:13:59.847Z
Answers.Text: Even without a stalemate, not ALL endgames K+P vs K would be winning, but in fact almost all.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-03-19T20:20:22.737Z
Answers.Text: To be precise, the endgame K+P vs K would be won, if the pawn cannot be captured.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-03-19T20:20:50.960Z
Answers.Text: Furthermore, K+Q vs K+R would become far easier to win. And there would be no "wrong" bishop in the endgame K+B+P vs K.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-03-19T20:23:54.693Z
Answers.Text: And there would even be positions where a king could win against a king and a pawn. This should be a good reason not to play without the stalemate-rule.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-03-10T13:53:20.543Z
Answers.Text: @Peter, did you forget a negation somewhere in your last comment?
Answers.UserDisplayName: hkBst
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-03-11T12:12:49.203Z
Answers.Text: @hkBst No. It is easy to construct a position with a king against a king and a pawn, where the player with the king can stalemate the opponent, having a king and a pawn. In this case, the opponent only having a king would win, which would be absurd.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-03-14T12:22:10.957Z
Answers.Text: @Peter, most end-games of K+p vs K would still be won for the side with the pawn. Having a few positions that would be a win for the lone King seems like a good thing to me, as this means that stalemate is a lot like checkmate. You would not want to abolish checkmate, just because it can be performed from a material disadvantage, now would you? That would hardly be chess any more...
Answers.UserDisplayName: hkBst
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-24T22:01:32.700Z
Answers.Text: @Peter, can you give the position of K+p vs K where white is stalemated?
Answers.UserDisplayName: justhalf
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-06-24T22:07:20.950Z
Answers.Text: @justhalf For example White : Ka8 , Pa7 Black : Kd7 black moves Kc7 or Kc8  to stalemate white.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-12T21:58:18.657Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-08-11T16:54:36.193Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-08-11T16:54:36.193Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Simon Louchart
Answers.Body: <p>Simple reason - you cannot kill the king in his current place and the king is dead if he moves. So they maintain status quo till eternity, meaning stalemate.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-24T02:49:09.153Z
Answers.Text: Although in a timed match, a player can only maintain the status quo until their time runs out; at which point they lose.
Answers.UserDisplayName: martin
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-03T22:48:24.967Z
Answers.Text: The exact same thing goes for checkmate. Checkmatibg, you cannot kill the king in its current place because it is not your move.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Pattmann
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-04T12:59:34.793Z
Answers.Text: Maybe just allow 'nothing' to be a legal chess move then?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Thomas Ahle
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-04T13:01:24.363Z
Answers.Text: Update: I guess that would make chess unwinnable for black though :/
Answers.UserDisplayName: Thomas Ahle
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-10-12T18:18:50.870Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-10-12T18:18:50.870Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Orangecrush
Answers.Body: <p>The objective of the game is to achieve a checkmate. If you leave your opponent no legal moves, then he/she is not in check, is not checkmated, yet can't move. It speaks to the ability of the player to recognize the possibility of stalemate, and avoid it while playing for the checkmate (or opponent resignation).</p>
  
  <p>You haven't achieved the objective of the game, hence, a draw.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-10-11T15:02:13.313Z
Answers.Text: I think the intended question is, *why* is that the only objective? For what reasons is stalemate not included with checkmate as a winning objective? For instance, there have been points in the evolution of the game when stalemate has actually been considered a win, so why have the rules settled the way that they have?
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-10-11T17:22:57.067Z
Answers.Text: Good point. I had not considered that.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnP
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-10-11T17:25:53.163Z
Answers.Text: I know it's wiki, but even they are unsure of the "why" :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#History_of_the_stalemate_rule
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnP
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-10-11T14:09:58.673Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-10-11T14:09:58.673Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnP
Answers.Body: <p>I thought of a weird line of reasoning for which a stalemate would be considered a <em>loss</em> for the attacking player (who causes the stalemate), because at lower levels it is caused by a blunder by the attacker and at higher levels it means the defender has outmaneuvered the attacker to force a stalemate. But it doesn't feel quite right to call it a loss when the attacker is apparently winning, while there should be some reward for a defender cleverly forcing a stalemate. The compromise is to call it a draw, though it comes down to your opinion on how much to reward each player for their play that led to the stalemate.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-06-13T08:35:06.873Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-06-13T08:35:06.873Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: qwr
Answers.Body: <p>Big flaw in the classic chess game. The logic thing would be for the stalled player to pass the move back as in other boardgames where you are not able to move. If no player can move, then its a draw.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-11-21T22:55:55.660Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-11-21T22:55:55.660Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: SumoDing
Answers.Body: <p>Lack of moves to do, don't happen only because all your possible moves would lead to you putting yourself in check. It's possible for player X to make a move that create a situation where player Y can't make any moves, even ones that would put themselves in check.</p>
  <p>The reason they made stalemate a draw, was probably/maybe to simplify the stalemate rules, instead of being a win if you only have moves that would put you in check, and being a draw if you have no move, they simplified it to make everything a draw.</p>
  <p>Making stalemate a loss for the stalemated player would also be wrong, there are situations where you wouldn't have any move to do (including ones that would put you in check) and you would lose.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-09-30T23:41:09.110Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-10-01T08:30:56.230Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-10-01T08:30:56.230Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Colleg an Delta
Answers.Body: <p>Because the king is not under attack.
  Attacks are the single most salient feature of the game of chess.
  How could you win without an attack?
  Can you capture material without an attack?
  Similarly.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-12-01T19:07:34.183Z
Answers.Text: "Can you capture material without an attack?" - If there's zugzwang, sure.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-12-01T07:19:09.730Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-12-01T07:19:09.730Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Answers.Body: <p>Stalemate is a draw in classical chess yet there are other chess variants both historical and modern where stalemate is not a draw. </p>
  
  <p>Very early versions of Chess, such as Shatranj Chess (props to Andrew Latham) declare the player causing stalemate the winner and even today there are callings to return to that rule.</p>
  
  <p>for example: </p>
  
  <p>Larry Kaufman Chess Life Sept. 2009 writes: </p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>"calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents
    the ultimate zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken"</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>A typical counter to this point is that Chess tradition dictates that a stalemate cannot result in a win for the stalemating player because it would require a suicidal move from the stalemated player (moving your king into check is, in most forms of chess, an illegal move). If there are no moves on the board that you are able to make (other then resigning) then in making the stalemating move your opponent has effectively ended the game without a definitive result (capture of the king) and is judged to have not won the game.</p>
  
  <p>So.. "In Classical Chess what is the probable origin of stalemate being considered a draw?"</p>
  
  <p>The earliest reference I can find to Stalemate being a draw in formalised chess rules is 13th century Italy where the version of Chess played declared that a game could only be won by checkmate or resignation. Stalemate, under those terms, describes a state where a player cannot make a legal move. In effect the game has stalled in a state where neither player can achieve Checkmate and is drawn.</p>
  
  <p>Stalemate as a draw then spread to Germany (1400s), Spain (1600s) and throughout Europe by 19th Century when the formal rules of what we know as classical chess were put in place. </p>
  
  <p>England was one of the final adopters of Stalemate as a draw in the 1800s (up until that point the stalemated player had actually been declared the winner).</p>
  
  <p>Opinion:</p>
  
  <p>Yes tradition does favors the player in stalemate but it has been that way for a very long time. The flipping of that advantage to the stalemating player would greatly change the nature of the endgame (and thus the game of chess and a huge amount of chess theory), which is probably why such arguments have not recieved too much traction.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-04-24T11:58:18.893Z
Answers.Text: @Totero: "However Stalemate could be confusing if the form of chess you play allows you to move the king into check (a suicidal move). In this instance there can never be Stalemate, only Zugzwang." Not entirely true. Even if moving into check is a valid move, it would still be possible to create positions where no piece has a valid move because every piece is trapped and unable to move.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mark Byers
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-06-16T08:27:08.573Z
Answers.Text: @Totero The counter argument you present is _not_ a valid argument: _"A typical counter to this point is that Chess tradition dictates that a stalemate cannot result in a win for the stalemating player because it would require a suicidal move from the stalemated player."_  However the very idea of "checkmate" relies on the fact that your king is _about_ to be captured and there are _no legal moves which can avoid this_ (i.e. all moves are "suicidal").  In fact, if you examine it, there is little difference between checkmate and stalemate (except for the skill required to achieve each).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jared
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-06-18T14:07:12.630Z
Answers.Text: @Mark Byres. Great Point. Hadn't thought of that eventuality. You are indeed correct. Unfortunately I cannot update the comment. So I stand corrected.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Totero
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-06-28T14:50:32.360Z
Answers.Text: Good research here. But it's the pure tradition of chess that has led to the drawing rule, it could have been developed into a more astute rule like: A stalemate is a LOSS for the opponent if he has the material advantage before the stalemate (the taken pieces and pawns would be the judgement). This, to punish a stalemate made by careless play which often happens. This rule would also have opened to many strategies to force a stalemate for the desperate party.
Answers.UserDisplayName: MikeTrans
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-01-09T12:33:25.733Z
Answers.Text: I have edited the punctuation to make it clearer. The answer provided has nothing to do with Zugzwang because there are no legal moves on the board. However Stalemate could be confusing if the form of chess you play allows you to move the king into check (a suicidal move). In this instance there can never be Stalemate, only Zugzwang. Hope this clears up any confusion.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Totero
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-01-09T15:27:27.087Z
Answers.Text: @FM Rauan Sagit From your own link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate) "stalemate may or may not be treated as a draw." There is no indication anywhere that the question only applies to Classical Chess. Hence I have provided an answer which encompasses all types of chess which is qualified in the very next sentence.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Totero
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-01-10T12:44:36.997Z
Answers.Text: @FM Rauan Sagit I approved your edit and incorporated your last comment. I also added some historical context while leaving the main part of the text untouched. I hope it reads clearer now.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Totero
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-04T12:59:06.043Z
Answers.Text: Can you point to some of the endgame theory that would fundamentally change if stalemate became a loss?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Thomas Ahle
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-16T00:39:15.603Z
Answers.Text: If capturing a king were a legal move but for a sportsmanship requirement that the player on move allow the opponent to replace his last move with something that didn't endanger his king, then most stalemates would be forced checkmates, but some would not.  For example, white pawns at a2,b3,c2; white king at a1, bishop at b1, rook at b2.  Arbitrary black pieces at a3, b4, c3; a4 and c4 vacant.  Even if moving into check were allowed, none of white's pieces would have anywhere to go [nb: that exact position couldn't happen, but I think other positions stalemated in that way could.]
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-16T00:58:19.380Z
Answers.Text: Switch sides and with a couple changes the position could occur.  Black king at A1; bishop b1; rook b2; pawns a2, b3, c2. Arbitrary white pieces at c1, and d1 vacant. Black's last move could have been his c pawn, and getting pieces into position before that would be easy. BTW, stalemate simply meant one could pass one's turn, I wonder if double-stalemate positions could occur using the "normal" definition (which includes situations where pieces could move except that doing so would cause check).
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-10-12T15:41:27.403Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-01-10T12:54:41.173Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-01-10T12:54:41.173Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Totero
Body: <p>It is so difficult to force stalemate and sometimes unintentional too, so why is stalemate a draw? </p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>As the opponent doesn't have a further move, why is it not considered a win?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-10-11T18:43:33.940Z
Comments.Text: While I don't have an answer for the historical why, I'm glad it is a draw. It's exciting to watch someone claw back from a lost position with a clever stalemate.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Christopher Berman
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-10-12T03:53:43.550Z
Comments.Text: A little while back Matt Bishop wrote an [article](http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8302) on chessbase.com which advocated abolishing stalemate.  I don't agree with this sentiment but the article did include some history of the rule as well as the only two games in a world championship to end in stalemate.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Morgan Sherman
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-12-24T16:42:14.007Z
Comments.Text: Incidentally, in Shatranj, stalemate was a win.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andrew Latham
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-04-19T20:08:52.630Z
Comments.Text: Ultimately, it's because he is not in check. What is so hard to understand?
Comments.UserDisplayName: user5649
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-10-08T14:37:30.360Z
Comments.Text: Because Chess was played without any time limit in ancient times, and when statemate occurs the player doesn't have any legal move, causing the game to never end.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akib Azmain Turja
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-06-05T06:57:49.893Z
Comments.Text: In Chinese Chess (XiangQi), stalemate is a win for the attacker.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Youjun Hu
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-13T18:27:59.027Z
Comments.Text: @KilianFoth Actually that seems like an argument in favor of stalemate being a win, because stalemate would (if your opponent had to move) force your opponent to move into check, at which point you capture the king.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-14T08:58:47.967Z
Comments.Text: I stand corrected, actually some stalemates wouldn't result in the king being forced to move into check because the king couldn't actually move.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-01-18T09:51:30.730Z
Comments.Text: Because the fundamental object of chess is to capture the enemy king (even though modern rules have the game end before that actually happens). Since you haven't succeeded in capturing the king, you haven't won.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Kilian Foth
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-01-23T14:29:53.833Z
Comments.Text: @ChristopherBerman additionally it's exciting to watch when a win actually happens. often in games/sports in general people think like 'ah this person or team won by only 1 or 2 points. big deal.' in chess / 9LX, 3 points difference can be a draw (king minor vs king). hell even 8 points difference it can be a draw (queen vs bishop or rook pawn))
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Tags: <history><draw><stalemate>
Title: Why is stalemate a draw?
ThreadText: # Why is stalemate a draw?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2012-10-11)
  
  It is so difficult to force stalemate and sometimes unintentional too, so why is stalemate a draw?
  
  > As the opponent doesn't have a further move, why is it not considered a win?
  
  **Tags:** history, draw, stalemate
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: While I don't have an answer for the historical why, I'm glad it is a draw. It's exciting to watch someone claw back from a lost position with a clever stalemate.  
  > **username_2**: A little while back Matt Bishop wrote an [article](http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8302) on chessbase.com which advocated abolishing stalemate.  I don't agree with this sentiment but the article did include some history of the rule as well as the only two games in a world championship to end in stalemate.  
  > **username_3**: Incidentally, in Shatranj, stalemate was a win.  
  > **username_4**: Ultimately, it's because he is not in check. What is so hard to understand?  
  > **username_5**: Because Chess was played without any time limit in ancient times, and when statemate occurs the player doesn't have any legal move, causing the game to never end.  
  > **username_8**: Because the fundamental object of chess is to capture the enemy king (even though modern rules have the game end before that actually happens). Since you haven't succeeded in capturing the king, you haven't won.  
  > **username_9**: @ChristopherBerman additionally it's exciting to watch when a win actually happens. often in games/sports in general people think like 'ah this person or team won by only 1 or 2 points. big deal.' in chess / 9LX, 3 points difference can be a draw (king minor vs king). hell even 8 points difference it can be a draw (queen vs bishop or rook pawn))  
  > **username_6**: In Chinese Chess (XiangQi), stalemate is a win for the attacker.  
  > **username_7**: @KilianFoth Actually that seems like an argument in favor of stalemate being a win, because stalemate would (if your opponent had to move) force your opponent to move into check, at which point you capture the king.  
  > **username_7**: I stand corrected, actually some stalemates wouldn't result in the king being forced to move into check because the king couldn't actually move.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 11 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_32 on 2012-10-12. Score: 46 | Accepted answer
  
  Stalemate is a draw in classical chess yet there are other chess variants both historical and modern where stalemate is not a draw.
  
  Very early versions of Chess, such as Shatranj Chess (props to username_3) declare the player causing stalemate the winner and even today there are callings to return to that rule.
  
  for example:
  
  Larry Kaufman Chess Life Sept. 2009 writes:
  
  > "calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents
  > the ultimate zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken"
  
  A typical counter to this point is that Chess tradition dictates that a stalemate cannot result in a win for the stalemating player because it would require a suicidal move from the stalemated player (moving your king into check is, in most forms of chess, an illegal move). If there are no moves on the board that you are able to make (other then resigning) then in making the stalemating move your opponent has effectively ended the game without a definitive result (capture of the king) and is judged to have not won the game.
  
  So.. "In Classical Chess what is the probable origin of stalemate being considered a draw?"
  
  The earliest reference I can find to Stalemate being a draw in formalised chess rules is 13th century Italy where the version of Chess played declared that a game could only be won by checkmate or resignation. Stalemate, under those terms, describes a state where a player cannot make a legal move. In effect the game has stalled in a state where neither player can achieve Checkmate and is drawn.
  
  Stalemate as a draw then spread to Germany (1400s), Spain (1600s) and throughout Europe by 19th Century when the formal rules of what we know as classical chess were put in place.
  
  England was one of the final adopters of Stalemate as a draw in the 1800s (up until that point the stalemated player had actually been declared the winner).
  
  Opinion:
  
  Yes tradition does favors the player in stalemate but it has been that way for a very long time. The flipping of that advantage to the stalemating player would greatly change the nature of the endgame (and thus the game of chess and a huge amount of chess theory), which is probably why such arguments have not recieved too much traction.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_32**: I have edited the punctuation to make it clearer. The answer provided has nothing to do with Zugzwang because there are no legal moves on the board. However Stalemate could be confusing if the form of chess you play allows you to move the king into check (a suicidal move). In this instance there can never be Stalemate, only Zugzwang. Hope this clears up any confusion.  
  > **username_32**: @FM Rauan Sagit From your own link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate) "stalemate may or may not be treated as a draw." There is no indication anywhere that the question only applies to Classical Chess. Hence I have provided an answer which encompasses all types of chess which is qualified in the very next sentence.  
  > **username_32**: @FM Rauan Sagit I approved your edit and incorporated your last comment. I also added some historical context while leaving the main part of the text untouched. I hope it reads clearer now.  
  > **username_25**: Can you point to some of the endgame theory that would fundamentally change if stalemate became a loss?  
  > **username_36**: If capturing a king were a legal move but for a sportsmanship requirement that the player on move allow the opponent to replace his last move with something that didn't endanger his king, then most stalemates would be forced checkmates, but some would not.  For example, white pawns at a2,b3,c2; white king at a1, bishop at b1, rook at b2.  Arbitrary black pieces at a3, b4, c3; a4 and c4 vacant.  Even if moving into check were allowed, none of white's pieces would have anywhere to go [nb: that exact position couldn't happen, but I think other positions stalemated in that way could.]  
  > **username_36**: Switch sides and with a couple changes the position could occur.  Black king at A1; bishop b1; rook b2; pawns a2, b3, c2. Arbitrary white pieces at c1, and d1 vacant. Black's last move could have been his c pawn, and getting pieces into position before that would be easy. BTW, stalemate simply meant one could pass one's turn, I wonder if double-stalemate positions could occur using the "normal" definition (which includes situations where pieces could move except that doing so would cause check).  
  > **username_33**: @username_32: "However Stalemate could be confusing if the form of chess you play allows you to move the king into check (a suicidal move). In this instance there can never be Stalemate, only Zugzwang." Not entirely true. Even if moving into check is a valid move, it would still be possible to create positions where no piece has a valid move because every piece is trapped and unable to move.  
  > **username_34**: @username_32 The counter argument you present is _not_ a valid argument: _"A typical counter to this point is that Chess tradition dictates that a stalemate cannot result in a win for the stalemating player because it would require a suicidal move from the stalemated player."_  However the very idea of "checkmate" relies on the fact that your king is _about_ to be captured and there are _no legal moves which can avoid this_ (i.e. all moves are "suicidal").  In fact, if you examine it, there is little difference between checkmate and stalemate (except for the skill required to achieve each).  
  > **username_32**: @Mark Byres. Great Point. Hadn't thought of that eventuality. You are indeed correct. Unfortunately I cannot update the comment. So I stand corrected.  
  > **username_35**: Good research here. But it's the pure tradition of chess that has led to the drawing rule, it could have been developed into a more astute rule like: A stalemate is a LOSS for the opponent if he has the material advantage before the stalemate (the taken pieces and pawns would be the judgement). This, to punish a stalemate made by careless play which often happens. This rule would also have opened to many strategies to force a stalemate for the desperate party.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2013-12-13. Score: 28
  
  I think stalemate is a draw for the same reason that dropping the white ball when potting black is a loss in 8-ball pool - it gives the losing player a granule of hope until the very end, and it ensures that the winner must be clinical in securing his win.
  
  With regards to whether this flows logically from the other rules of the game - chess is, after all, a human made game, not a form of mathematics, so a rule does not have to be logically consistent with all other aspects of the game. If we all agree that a specific rule is good for the game, then we don't need to justify this rule against the logic of other rules (en passant and castling are similar).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_11**: I think this 8-ball analogy is the most convincing argument I've heard on this point besides "it's tradition". Great answer!  
  > **username_12**: I don't think that is the reason for your pool example. Logically, dropping the white ball when potting the black has to be a loss : you can't profit from a foul shot, there is no way to continue the game because there is nothing left to pot, and pool doesn't have draws, so what else could it be? Chess is quite different, because (as you say) stalemate being a draw is not the only logical option.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_13 on 2012-10-17. Score: 25
  
  As username_32 notes, changing stalemate in this fashion would drastically change endgame play. Currently, one must learn how to recognize different King/Pawn endings, and how other pieces interact with these endings. Opposite- vs same-color Bishops, Knight/Pawn vs Knight, Rook/Pawn vs Rook, and other basic variations.
  
  Changing stalemate to a win would throw much of that out the window. Who cares whether White or Black has the opposition? Just run that Pawn down the board. Rook/Pawn vs Rook? No worries, just force a trade, and the win is guaranteed. It might not be fair to say that this would trivialize endgame play in reducing it to mindless exchanges from material superiority, but it would be a drastic change.
  
  Put another way, it takes more skill to calculate and remember ending positions than it does to march one's way to a stalemate, and the stalemate rule is intended to recognize that fact.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_14**: In general it would make the game sharper, harder, not neccessarily a bad thing. You're looking at it as if the game was played with the current rules and then in the endgame they suddenly changed to stalemate=win. Also endgames with pawn imbalance are not all of them. It gets interesting when you consider others, like KvNN (`7K/8/8/8/8/8/8/1N1k3N b - - 0 1` white can force stalemate), KvB, KvBB (same colored) and many others. It would ADD diversity and skill to endgames.  
  > **username_15**: @username_14 KNNvK is such a rare endgame that making it more interesting does not compensate for all the endgames that now become trivial  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_16 on 2012-10-18. Score: 12
  
  I remember reading somewhere once which advocated that stalemate should be (could be) 3/4 point. Unfortunately, a quick google search turned up nothing.
  
  The idea is interesting. It seems that you gained more by stalemating your opponent than you gain if the position is completely equal. By similar logic, the stalemated side seems to have not lost as badly as he would have if he had been checkmated.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_17**: According to wikipedia, that basic idea was in use in 18th century Spain; in terms of betting, a stalemate was considered a "half-win" for the stalemater. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#History_of_the_stalemate_rule  
  > **username_0**: @EdDean that is interesting  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_18 on 2013-12-12. Score: 10
  
  There would definitely be some logic in considering Stalemate a win (after all, the opponent's King *has* to move and and will be captured on next move, so that *should* be a win).
  
  However, this would have a huge impact on the whole Chess game. The reason is that, if Stalemate wins, now **all** King+pawn VS King endings are winning. Thus being one pawn ahead, exchanging all the pieces leads to a trivial win. I am not saying it would be bad, just that it would change the game more than you imagine.
  
  For more details on the Stalemate (and on the key position in K+P VS K endings), you can have a look at the following [blog post](http://chesstrainerapp.blogspot.com/2013/12/is-it-mate-or-stalemate-introduction.html) I wrote.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_19**: Even without a stalemate, not ALL endgames K+P vs K would be winning, but in fact almost all.  
  > **username_19**: To be precise, the endgame K+P vs K would be won, if the pawn cannot be captured.  
  > **username_19**: Furthermore, K+Q vs K+R would become far easier to win. And there would be no "wrong" bishop in the endgame K+B+P vs K.  
  > **username_19**: And there would even be positions where a king could win against a king and a pawn. This should be a good reason not to play without the stalemate-rule.  
  > **username_20**: @username_19, did you forget a negation somewhere in your last comment?  
  > **username_19**: @username_20 No. It is easy to construct a position with a king against a king and a pawn, where the player with the king can stalemate the opponent, having a king and a pawn. In this case, the opponent only having a king would win, which would be absurd.  
  > **username_20**: @username_19, most end-games of K+p vs K would still be won for the side with the pawn. Having a few positions that would be a win for the lone King seems like a good thing to me, as this means that stalemate is a lot like checkmate. You would not want to abolish checkmate, just because it can be performed from a material disadvantage, now would you? That would hardly be chess any more...  
  > **username_21**: @username_19, can you give the position of K+p vs K where white is stalemated?  
  > **username_19**: @username_21 For example White : Ka8 , Pa7 Black : Kd7 black moves Kc7 or Kc8  to stalemate white.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_22 on 2012-10-12. Score: 9
  
  Simple reason - you cannot kill the king in his current place and the king is dead if he moves. So they maintain status quo till eternity, meaning stalemate.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_25**: Maybe just allow 'nothing' to be a legal chess move then?  
  > **username_25**: Update: I guess that would make chess unwinnable for black though :/  
  > **username_23**: Although in a timed match, a player can only maintain the status quo until their time runs out; at which point they lose.  
  > **username_24**: The exact same thing goes for checkmate. Checkmatibg, you cannot kill the king in its current place because it is not your move.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_26 on 2012-10-11. Score: 8
  
  The objective of the game is to achieve a checkmate. If you leave your opponent no legal moves, then he/she is not in check, is not checkmated, yet can't move. It speaks to the ability of the player to recognize the possibility of stalemate, and avoid it while playing for the checkmate (or opponent resignation).
  
  You haven't achieved the objective of the game, hence, a draw.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_17**: I think the intended question is, *why* is that the only objective? For what reasons is stalemate not included with checkmate as a winning objective? For instance, there have been points in the evolution of the game when stalemate has actually been considered a win, so why have the rules settled the way that they have?  
  > **username_26**: Good point. I had not considered that.  
  > **username_26**: I know it's wiki, but even they are unsure of the "why" :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#History_of_the_stalemate_rule  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_27 on 2021-06-13. Score: 2
  
  I thought of a weird line of reasoning for which a stalemate would be considered a *loss* for the attacking player (who causes the stalemate), because at lower levels it is caused by a blunder by the attacker and at higher levels it means the defender has outmaneuvered the attacker to force a stalemate. But it doesn't feel quite right to call it a loss when the attacker is apparently winning, while there should be some reward for a defender cleverly forcing a stalemate. The compromise is to call it a draw, though it comes down to your opinion on how much to reward each player for their play that led to the stalemate.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_28 on 2013-11-21. Score: 2
  
  Big flaw in the classic chess game. The logic thing would be for the stalled player to pass the move back as in other boardgames where you are not able to move. If no player can move, then its a draw.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_29 on 2021-09-30. Score: 1
  
  Lack of moves to do, don't happen only because all your possible moves would lead to you putting yourself in check. It's possible for player X to make a move that create a situation where player Y can't make any moves, even ones that would put themselves in check.
  
  The reason they made stalemate a draw, was probably/maybe to simplify the stalemate rules, instead of being a win if you only have moves that would put you in check, and being a draw if you have no move, they simplified it to make everything a draw.
  
  Making stalemate a loss for the stalemated player would also be wrong, there are situations where you wouldn't have any move to do (including ones that would put you in check) and you would lose.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_30 on 2017-12-01. Score: -1
  
  Because the king is not under attack.
  Attacks are the single most salient feature of the game of chess.
  How could you win without an attack?
  Can you capture material without an attack?
  Similarly.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_31**: "Can you capture material without an attack?" - If there's zugzwang, sure.  
  
  ---
  
  