Playing on when all is lost.

I have a game at the moment where I have Queen, Rook, Bishop and four pawns against two pawns. I am going to win next move. Personally I would have resigned ages ago, but if my opponent chooses to play on it's his right and I'm not going to argue with it.

This has been the subject of many pointless threads in the past and the answer often given is that the losing player might have hopes of a draw by stalemate. Now, here is the question. I have NEVER had a game end in stalemate. Have you? What proportion of games do actually end that way (or would do by forced moves if a draw was not agreed earlier)? It must be a tiny fraction of 1%.

That stalemate story is just an euphemism.
Your opponent is actually hoping that you would die during the game (plenty of possibilities: crash accident, killed by your mother-in-law or in a bank robbery, fatal illness, shark attack etc.)

Long ago,as a rank beginner,I have stalemated and been stalemated.Don't recall it ever happening after I learned to play a bit.

I think stalemate is fairly common among beginners but excluding those I'd say your 1% is even too optimistic.

edit: and I agree with vandervelde.They're really playing the 'dead man's defence'

I have found if a player has just one Stalemate on his cards then the
chances are he will seek more. Your opponent has been involved in a stalemate.
Game 4983461.

History does dictate he is slow to resign (and as you said he is perfectly within
his right to do so) He waited till your second Queen appeared before resigning
Game 7009477

There is one lad on here, the odd name escapes me, who has had 19 Stalemates.

You have played each other a few times on here.
Some interesting and good fun games.
That mate from the blue you gave him in Game 7497627 was well spotted
and planned.

That was you getting him back for this game.

I liked his sneaky back rank trap in this game. You were White.

Black to play.


Most of us would play 1....Nc8 The Rook can take care of the a-pawn.
Instead...

Originally posted by C J Horse
This has been the subject of many pointless threads in the past and the answer often given is that the losing player might have hopes of a draw by stalemate. Now, here is the question. I have NEVER had a game end in stalemate. Have you?

"What proportion of games do actually end that way."

To date 6902 championship have finished. Just 220 Rd1 games to go! (7122-6902).

So far 6 have ended in stalemate.

Game 9038273
Game 9039216
Game 9039407
Game 9041228
Game 9041675
Game 9043654

So the average is approx 1 stalemate every 1,150 games.

The game in question has finished. Game 9099814
It was obvious the lad was going for a stalemate from move 26
when he gives up his Rook and Bishop.

I can understand the frustration but you are a sub so you can
have as many games as you like. Non subs I think feel this more
especially if they are involved on one of these 21 days a move games.

In the actual game 17.Qe6+ instead of 17.b4 batters him off the board.

Also after you queened I looked for a quicker win and there is one.
Instead of 36.Qe8+ the move 36.Qb5 cutting off the flight squares
was quicker. Black can do nothing to prevent to 37.Rd4 mate.
(In these situations cover the flight squares, then any check wins.)

Originally posted by C J Horse
...This has been the subject of many pointless threads in the past and the answer often given is that the losing player might have hopes of a draw by stalemate. Now, here is the question. I have NEVER had a game end in stalemate. Have you? What proportion of games do actually end that way (or would do by forced moves if a draw was not agreed earlier)? It must be a tiny fraction of 1%.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Yes: Thread 145581.

Richard