This was posted in the help forum by RolandYound in response to a stalemate question :-
"Avoiding giving stalemate is just one of those things you have to learn, like castling and the en passant rule. Along with trying to get a draw by repetition, it gives a hope of rescuing something to a player who is down on material. Actually, it's quite surprising that you have been playing this long and not run into it before.
It's interesting to consider what alternative there could be to the stalemate rule: if you haven't checkmated your opponent, you clearly haven't won, but if he has no legal move, the game has to stop; neither player has won, so it must be a draw. One might that the rules could forbid you to make a move that would lead to stalemate, but what if you had no other legal moves yourself? - stalemate again!"
My question is: Can anyone post a fen from a legally obtained position where the only legal move available would lead to stalemate?
A stalemate could have been deemed a win by the rules if they wanted, by the following reason.
The player to move cannot make a legal move and is unable to continue, thus, he loses. (In addition, the stalemating player usually has the stronger position.)
However, stalemate was deemed a draw, perhaps to give the losing player something to aim for in an otherwise hopeless position.
(This comment is on logical alternative setups of chess in an alternate dimension, just like the bishops and knights could have been swapped in initial positions..)
Originally posted by cadwah My question is: Can anyone post a fen from a legally obtained position where the only legal move available would lead to stalemate?
This has me completely stumped.
Though not the best example, that's what i came up on the fly:
The only legal move is 1.Kxh2 which results in stalemate.
Originally posted by geepamoogle However, stalemate was deemed a draw, perhaps to give the losing player something to aim for in an otherwise hopeless position.
I think it's more that it fundamentally changes the balance of the game. For instance, all K+P vs K openings (except for those where the P cannot be protected) would be wins for the side with the pawn.
Originally posted by mtthw I think it's more that it fundamentally changes the balance of the game. For instance, all K+P vs K openings (except for those where the P cannot be protected) would be wins for the side with the pawn.
We have, in essence, stated the same thing, but in different ways. I would agree with you.
It seems like I have heard of one Asian version of chess (with different piece sets and board layouts) where the stalemating side loses, but I can't recall it's name at this time.
I like chess the way it is, though, because you always have to be on the alert.
Originally posted by geepamoogle We have, in essence, stated the same thing, but in different ways. I would agree with you.
Ah. I thought you were talking about positions that are still lost under the current rules, but where someone can play on in the hope that the opponent will make an error. Whereas I was talking about positions that can be drawn now, but would be lost under a rule change.
Stalemate
09 Mar '07 00:28
Back to Top