Body: <p>If your opponent eliminates all your options to move, you don't lose in chess, but is regarded an equal to your opponent. Isn't this peculiar? In most games and in real life hunt and war it is a winning strategy to eliminate the opponent's options to move. <em>"Oh, you can't move now, can you, so it's obviously my turn again! (grinning)"</em></p>
  
  <p>Is there some history to this? Stalemate does make chess much more interesting, but was it kind of invented in order to be so, or how could it have evolved? Is there some Victorian age gentlemanship involved here?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-08-23T11:33:03.120Z
Comments.Text: It can be regarded as a form of mini-victory to pull a losing position into a state where you have no moves and draw. When your opponent is winning, it is likely they will win with a score of 1-0. If you out-play your opponent and make it into a stalemate, it is considered that you played better with the pieces you had and you get the draw.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Aric
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-08-23T12:03:42.250Z
Comments.Text: Yup, I don't exactly know about the history, but there is good reason to keep it the way it is, from a "makes games interesting" point of view. Many endgames would become really boring without the possibility of a draw by stalemate.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-08-23T15:45:31.223Z
Comments.Text: @Annatar: Could you give some examples for such boring endgames?
Comments.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-08-24T06:11:27.493Z
Comments.Text: @user1583209 K+Q vs K+P. Depending on the file of the pawn, there are some stalemate threats. Which in turn makes liquidations into such an endgame more strategically significant (both sides will want to "guide" the pawn to desirable files).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Tags: <history><stalemate>
Title: What's the history behind stalemate not being a win?
ThreadText: # What's the history behind stalemate not being a win?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-08-23)
  
  If your opponent eliminates all your options to move, you don't lose in chess, but is regarded an equal to your opponent. Isn't this peculiar? In most games and in real life hunt and war it is a winning strategy to eliminate the opponent's options to move. *"Oh, you can't move now, can you, so it's obviously my turn again! (grinning)"*
  
  Is there some history to this? Stalemate does make chess much more interesting, but was it kind of invented in order to be so, or how could it have evolved? Is there some Victorian age gentlemanship involved here?
  
  **Tags:** history, stalemate
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: It can be regarded as a form of mini-victory to pull a losing position into a state where you have no moves and draw. When your opponent is winning, it is likely they will win with a score of 1-0. If you out-play your opponent and make it into a stalemate, it is considered that you played better with the pieces you had and you get the draw.  
  > **username_2**: Yup, I don't exactly know about the history, but there is good reason to keep it the way it is, from a "makes games interesting" point of view. Many endgames would become really boring without the possibility of a draw by stalemate.  
  > **username_3**: @username_2: Could you give some examples for such boring endgames?  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 K+Q vs K+P. Depending on the file of the pawn, there are some stalemate threats. Which in turn makes liquidations into such an endgame more strategically significant (both sides will want to "guide" the pawn to desirable files).  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  