Answers.Body: <p>Thanks to <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/35659/40224">Rewan Demontay</a> for the inspiration!</p>
  <pre><code>[Title &quot;Stalemate or Be Stalemated&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;8/6pp/6pk/6p1/6P1/6PK/6PP/5r1R w - - 0 1&quot;]
  [startflipped &quot;&quot;]
  
  1. Rxf1 {White Stalemates Black} (1. Rg1 Rxg1 {Black Stalemates White})
   
  </code></pre>
  <p>D M tweaked my idea for a more forceful solution (see comment below):</p>
  <pre><code>[Title &quot;D M's solution&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;8/6pp/6pk/p5p1/6P1/6PK/P5PP/8 w - - 0 1&quot;]
  [startflipped &quot;&quot;]
  
  1. a4 {White Stalemates Black} (1. a3 a4 {Black Stalemates White})
  </code></pre>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-08-25T19:57:55.720Z
Answers.Text: Black doesn't have to stalemate White here after Rg1, though, though. If you get rid of the rooks and add a white pawn on a2 and a black pawn on a5, then if White does not stalemate Black with a4 and plays a3 instead, Black *must* stalemate White with a4.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-08-25T19:25:17.860Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-08-25T20:19:42.183Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-08-25T20:19:42.183Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: dbergan
Answers.Body: <p>Here is a slightly less cluttered version:</p>
  <pre><code>[FEN &quot;7k/6p1/6PP/8/8/1p6/pP6/K7 w - - 0 1&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-08-26T06:43:24.700Z
Answers.Text: Very elegant, giving bK a choice but either way is stalemate
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-08-26T04:17:15.043Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-08-26T04:17:15.043Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: bof
Body: <p>It's pretty common to see positions where White has to <strong>checkmate</strong> Black to stop Black from checkmating White. I was wondering about the same concept with <strong>stalemate</strong>.</p>
  <p>At first, I thought it was impossible to create such a situation since the side creating the stalemate usually has the freedom to not stalemate and take an insufficient material draw instead. However, to some players (and in some variants), a stalemate is worth more than other draws. For example, Lasker thought a stalemate should be worth 0.8–0.2 instead of 0.5–0.5.</p>
  <p>After reading other Stack Exchange stalemate questions, I found a position that works, although it's extremely artificial (see my answer below). Are there any other positions? Any from an actual game?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-26T06:38:20.430Z
Comments.Text: What does "other board positions" mean? Other than what?
Comments.UserDisplayName: bof
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-26T12:19:00.670Z
Comments.Text: How does stalemating to avoid being stalemated amount to anything? Isn't it like drawing to avoid being drawn? It is still a draw in the end...
Comments.UserDisplayName: hkBst
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-26T20:56:21.540Z
Comments.Text: Note that, under FIDE rules, such a position is immediately drawn as a "dead position" (so technically no moves are legal, because the game is over).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Kevin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-27T06:37:00.147Z
Comments.Text: @Kevin So what? A position is "dead" if every sequence of moves from that position ends in a draw; in this instance, to one or the other player being stalemated. It would be pretty hard to implement the "dead position" rule if we were not allowed to think about further play from such a position. Anyway, FIDE didn't invent the game of chess.
Comments.UserDisplayName: bof
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-27T13:42:40.600Z
Comments.Text: @hkBst In some variants, stalemate is worth more than a draw. I'll edit the question to explain.
Comments.UserDisplayName: dbergan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-29T01:46:57.863Z
Comments.Text: @bof: It's not so much about being _allowed to think_; it's about the relevance of doing so. Once a situation is provably unwinnable for either party, there's nothing to be gained from further analyzing it.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Flater
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-29T02:18:55.827Z
Comments.Text: @Flater The moves leading to stalemate of Black or White are not *further* analysis; they constitute the analysis that *precedes* finding that the diagram position is "dead". The proof of a theorem does not become irrelevant after the theorem has been proved.  According to FIDE is the diagram position already stalemate because White has no legal move?
Comments.UserDisplayName: bof
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-29T02:28:31.650Z
Comments.Text: @bof: The distinction whether you assert that it's a dead position via exhaustion of the list of possibilities or via logical deduction is simply irrelevant as to the question of what to do when a dead position is encountered. The rules make no statement about you "not being allowed to think" about it, but the application of the rules means that the precise moveset onwards from a dead position no longer provides any meaningful distinction to the outcome of the game, thus making it irrelevant for the purpose of FIDE rules, which it expresses as "invalid".
Comments.UserDisplayName: Flater
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-29T02:34:15.540Z
Comments.Text: @bof: The reason why FIDE explicitly makes moves invalid once the game reaches a dead position is to prevent a player from willfully drawing out a game that provably cannot be concluded anymore, because the only reason for doing so would be one of creating a practical inconvenience for either their opponent or the tournament host. At no point do the rules say that you "aren't allowed to think about it", but the rules do say that you must stop playing the game because it would be a waste of everyone's time.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Flater
Tags: <problems><puzzles><stalemate>
Title: Is it possible to create a board position where White must make the move that leads to stalemating Black to avoid Black stalemating White?
ThreadText: # Is it possible to create a board position where White must make the move that leads to stalemating Black to avoid Black stalemating White?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-08-25)
  
  It's pretty common to see positions where White has to **checkmate** Black to stop Black from checkmating White. I was wondering about the same concept with **stalemate**.
  
  At first, I thought it was impossible to create such a situation since the side creating the stalemate usually has the freedom to not stalemate and take an insufficient material draw instead. However, to some players (and in some variants), a stalemate is worth more than other draws. For example, Lasker thought a stalemate should be worth 0.8–0.2 instead of 0.5–0.5.
  
  After reading other Stack Exchange stalemate questions, I found a position that works, although it's extremely artificial (see my answer below). Are there any other positions? Any from an actual game?
  
  **Tags:** problems, puzzles, stalemate
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: What does "other board positions" mean? Other than what?  
  > **username_2**: How does stalemating to avoid being stalemated amount to anything? Isn't it like drawing to avoid being drawn? It is still a draw in the end...  
  > **username_3**: Note that, under FIDE rules, such a position is immediately drawn as a "dead position" (so technically no moves are legal, because the game is over).  
  > **username_1**: @username_3 So what? A position is "dead" if every sequence of moves from that position ends in a draw; in this instance, to one or the other player being stalemated. It would be pretty hard to implement the "dead position" rule if we were not allowed to think about further play from such a position. Anyway, FIDE didn't invent the game of chess.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 In some variants, stalemate is worth more than a draw. I'll edit the question to explain.  
  > **username_4**: @username_1: It's not so much about being _allowed to think_; it's about the relevance of doing so. Once a situation is provably unwinnable for either party, there's nothing to be gained from further analyzing it.  
  > **username_1**: @username_4 The moves leading to stalemate of Black or White are not *further* analysis; they constitute the analysis that *precedes* finding that the diagram position is "dead". The proof of a theorem does not become irrelevant after the theorem has been proved.  According to FIDE is the diagram position already stalemate because White has no legal move?  
  > **username_4**: @username_1: The distinction whether you assert that it's a dead position via exhaustion of the list of possibilities or via logical deduction is simply irrelevant as to the question of what to do when a dead position is encountered. The rules make no statement about you "not being allowed to think" about it, but the application of the rules means that the precise moveset onwards from a dead position no longer provides any meaningful distinction to the outcome of the game, thus making it irrelevant for the purpose of FIDE rules, which it expresses as "invalid".  
  > **username_4**: @username_1: The reason why FIDE explicitly makes moves invalid once the game reaches a dead position is to prevent a player from willfully drawing out a game that provably cannot be concluded anymore, because the only reason for doing so would be one of creating a practical inconvenience for either their opponent or the tournament host. At no point do the rules say that you "aren't allowed to think about it", but the rules do say that you must stop playing the game because it would be a waste of everyone's time.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2024-08-26. Score: 23 | Accepted answer
  
  Here is a slightly less cluttered version:
  
  ```
  [FEN "7k/6p1/6PP/8/8/1p6/pP6/K7 w - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: Very elegant, giving bK a choice but either way is stalemate  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2024-08-25. Score: 9
  
  Thanks to [Rewan Demontay](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/35659/40224) for the inspiration!
  
  ```
  [Title "Stalemate or Be Stalemated"]
  [FEN "8/6pp/6pk/6p1/6P1/6PK/6PP/5r1R w - - 0 1"]
  [startflipped ""]
  
  1. Rxf1 {White Stalemates Black} (1. Rg1 Rxg1 {Black Stalemates White})
   
  
  ```
  
  D M tweaked my idea for a more forceful solution (see comment below):
  
  ```
  [Title "D M's solution"]
  [FEN "8/6pp/6pk/p5p1/6P1/6PK/P5PP/8 w - - 0 1"]
  [startflipped ""]
  
  1. a4 {White Stalemates Black} (1. a3 a4 {Black Stalemates White})
  
  ```
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: Black doesn't have to stalemate White here after Rg1, though, though. If you get rid of the rooks and add a white pawn on a2 and a black pawn on a5, then if White does not stalemate Black with a4 and plays a3 instead, Black *must* stalemate White with a4.  
  
  ---
  
  