Talk:Stalemate

message: Will people who are changing the image markup please note that in order for the article to make sense, it is necessary to have the second diagram (the Gelfand-Kramnik one) to the right of the part that says "The position to the right..." (in the Gelfand-Kramnik paragraph). I realise that as things stand this means having a certain amount of white-space in the article at certain resolutions. Maybe by shuffling around or adding some text this can be overcome, but it's not worth making nonsense of the article for. --Camembert
I do not understand why the position in the lower left corner of the first diagram is a stalemate -- if Black is to move, the pawn can capture the queen. -- Zack
:Black moves down the board. That's the convention used in all chess diagrams, unless otherwise stated. -- Arvindn
:: Oh.  Of course.  I think the pawn being on rank 2 threw me off.  -- Zack
----
At the bottom of the article we have "There have been calls to make a stalemate a win for the stalemater." I don't think I remember hearing anything about this. Who has made such calls, and when? --Camembert
*This Larry Evans article doesn't say who, but it does mention it (calling it crude):
http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessNews/evans/040726.php
*"A crude proposal that keeps popping up is to award a loss to the player who is stalemated. " --Bubba73 05:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think at sometime in the past, a stalemate was a LOSS for the stalemater!  And at another it was 3/4 win for the stalemater, something like that.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: image

message: OK, I'm happy with the outcome.
I've also pushed the simple examples down a bit so that the 1st 2 are just above the section in the dead space beside the TOC and the lower 2 are alongside the text. This is the best compromise I can find: higher forces the user to scroll up out of the text to see al of the top2 diagrams; lower creates huge whitespace after the section.
I have a wide monitor, and have tested the layout at full width, my normal browser window width and a bit narrower. The layout looks OK to me in Firefox, Internet Explorer (not sure if 6 or 7, I don't normally use IE) and Opera, all under Win XP SP2. That selection covers over 95% of the browser market.
By far the most important browser on which I can't test the layout is Safari on the Mac. It would be helpful if someone could test it on this.
If anyone wants to adjust the vertical position of these diagrams, the controller is style="margin-top:250px" - increase the number for down, decrease for up. -- Philcha (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: All agreed

message: I am not in favor of the move of the history section from near the end to being the first section, for two reasons (1) I think most readers would rather go directly into some more simple examples than the history of the rule, and (2) with the simple examples section first, the diagrams can be placed to use the space more effectively (to the side of the TOC).  Bubba73 (talk), 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I moved it there, maybe mainly because it seemed more "encyclopedic." I'm not wedded to the section's current placement, but it seems kind of weird just tacking it on at the end, which is how it was placed before. Anyone else have a thought on this? Krakatoa (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  Bubba73 on this. The history is interesting, butit's the least notable aspect - 99% of the literature about stalemate is about the modern game. -- Philcha (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The history is very interesting to me, and Murray has a lot more than my book by Davidson.  Krakatoa has done a great job adding more material and referencing it.  But unless there are objections, I think it should be moved to the end.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed that History has been moved, as well as "chess variants" and "other uses" (or what ever it is called).  I'm happy with this structure (and probably everything else).  Bubba73 (talk), 02:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section move 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
*This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
*If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
*You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bubba73 (talk), 03:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has enough links.  I think the diagrams suffice for images, I don't know what good a photo would do.  (I do have a photo of a stalemate, but I don't think there is much point in having it.)  Bubba73 (talk), 03:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  automated peer review 

message: This is a well-done article. Should we nominate it for A-class? Krakatoa (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least GA.  As I understand it, though, if it doesn't make it as "A", one of the recommendations is for it to be GA.  I'm through tweaking it.  If everyone else is through tweaking it?  If so, we can go forward.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm done tweaking it, too. I know that "A" is higher than "GA", but I think we usually nominate articles for A first, on the theory that if it passes A review (i.e. satisfies the chess people), then it's likelier to pass GA successfully, too. First-move advantage in chess and Howard Staunton, for instance, were A-reviewed (the first successfully, the second not), before going to GA review - which each passed (and FA review, as well, in the case of First-move advantage in chess). Krakatoa (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominate for A-class?

message: The text says. "even if it were White's move, there is no way to avoid this stalemate without allowing Black's pawn to promote. But he might be able to win the Q-vs-Q ending ...". As far as I can see in diagram 4, White to move wins by 1. Qc3+ Kb1; 2. Kd3 when 2. ... a1(Q) allows mate and Black must under-promote to N, after which White should win. Did I get the calculation right? -- Philcha (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in this case the white king is close enough.  When this diagram had the four parts in different corners, the white king did not appear in this part.  I stuck in a white king.  I'll move the king farther away.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but, I don't get this example either. I don't see how it is a stalemate. Black to play, if the pawn can take on the white queen, the move is legal and does not result in a mate. The stalemate would only happen much later when there are only two kings left (provided the pawn failed to promote). So yeah we can foresee the stalemate, but as is it's not. Or am I getting something wrong ?  User:Miniclash - 20 may 2011   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.103.150.178 (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The pawn can't take the queen.  Pawns don't move backwards.  And if it gets down to just the two kings, that is a draw, but it isn't stalemate. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple example 4

message: "This rule will often upset you when playing a game of chess with your father and you are about to dominate him, but then this stalemate crap comes up and ruins all your happiness." My father died when I was young and I've never played chess in my life. (not really, but statements that address the reader as "you" are weird and someone should change this...)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.39.202 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence was added by an anonymous user at 21:59 UTC yesterday and removed as vandalism the next minute by Epbr123. If you still see it, it must mean you see a cached version of the page. Wikipedia:Bypass your cache might be of interest. -- Jao (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the vandalized version is in his own cache it means that he loaded it in that minute that it was up that way.  He made this comment several hours after it was reverted.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So he did. Then I must say I am at a loss for an explanation. -- Jao (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wrote this? 

message: I removed a short phrase containing a personal attack. Most likely a random piece of vandalism but someone may want to keep an eye out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.161.115 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some vandalism 

message: How does it not affects endgame theory? Doesn't it currently says that a bare king can't win? I know it can't be forced, but the king and knight/bishop can't either and they are here!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.89.43 (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It would not affect endgame theory because it can't be forced.  Theory is about what can be forced against optimal play.  The player would not be playing optimally if he allowed himself to be stalemated that way.  For example, it is possible to checkmate with two knights versus a king, but it cannot be forced, so it is a theoretical draw. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is the king and knight/bishop stalemate here? It can't be forced either... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.89.43 (talk • contribs) 
It can't be forced in general, but there are positions in which stalemate can be forced, for instance this one on the left: 1.Nd7 Kh8 2. Nf6, stalemate.  Back up from the king and pawn versus king position you gave, and you have to blunder to get stalemated stalemate. 
A second reason is that it is in the reference. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  King vs Pawn stalemate 

message: The history section is too long. I don't see the need to talk about countless variations of the rule when all the section needs to highlight are it's origins and the current format it is used in.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.82.13 (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  It is interesting and only one screen.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the rule 

message: This section needs a source for the analysis.   I searched through most of my books that are indexed by players and I didn't find it.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Williams versus Harrwitz 

message: My first post on wikipedia, so excuse me if this is not the right procedure.
Under #More_complicated_examples, it is stated "The game would inevitably end in a draw by agreement, by threefold repetition, or by an eventual claim under the fifty-move rule (Averbakh 1996:80–81)."
Part of threefold repetition is that the position does not have to occur in succession. I don't think Evans could make a draw by the 50-move rule, because the game would proceed thus: 
50. Rxg7+ Kh8
Rh7 Kg8
Rg7 Kf8
Rf7 Ke8
Re7 Kd8
55. Rd7 Kc8
Rc7 Kb8
Rb7 Ka8
Ra7 Kb8
Rb7 Kc8
60. Rc7 Kd8
Rd7 Ke8
Re7 Kf8
Rf7 Kg8
Rg7 Kh8
65. Rh7 Kg8
Rg7 draw
Because 50. Rxg7 was a capture, we start counting from there, although there are several ways to defend, the longest way is only 16 moves.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudapri (talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Theoretically the fifty-move rule could be used.  For both the threefold repetition and the fifty-move rule, one of the players has to claim it.  A threefold repetition must occur in this position before the fifty-move rule can be invoked, but didn't claim the threefold repetition - then they could claim the fifty-move rule.  It seems that no reasonable person would do this, but it has happened.  In order to clam threefold repetition, you have to have a scoresheet showing the moves to prove it.  Players in time trouble don't have to record the moves.  But sometimes they put check marks to count the moves, and some clocks can count the moves.  So it sometimes happens that they don't have an oppertunity to claim threefold, but eventually the fifty-move rule comes up.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evans-Reshevsky can't end in 50-move rule, right? 

message: The Roycroft problem solution was mixed up, I think I straighted it out, someone w/ the source material s/ confirm, however. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I made it more like the source.  There are some side lines that aren't in the source. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roycroft problem 

message: What are some examples of positions in which one side forces stalemate on the opponent  (so the opponent has no moves) because all other strategies lose?  I found some artificial positions but they are very artificial.  Also are there any known cases of this happening in tournament play?  The positions I found go only one move deep.  That is, one move forces stalemate on the opponent and all other moves lose.  It seems plausible there are examples with greater move depth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synesthetic (talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples of forcing the stronger side into stalemate are at least close to non-existent.  But see Desperado (chess) where capturing the desperado piece puts the defender in stalemate (and if the desperado piece isn't captured, another type of draw is reached). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it has likely occurred in tournament play.  Here is a scenario.  The opponent has a knight which is threatening to deliver checkmate and the only defense is to pin the knight to the opponent's king causing stalemate.  I think a similar situation involving more than one move could make for a good chess puzzle.  Are there any known multi-move examples?  For example, White to stalemate in 3 (in an otherwise losing position).  
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Synesthetic (talk • contribs) 08:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see the section was really about forcing the stronger side into stalemate. Well, that really seems implausible, apart from Jasper Deng's example... Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalemating your opponent because other strategies lose 

message: about what chess would be like if stalemate were counted as a loss for the player in stalemate. From the viewpoint of how Chess is actually played today, however, much more logical (however illogical on the very first view) would be to treat it as a win (or "two points out of three") for the stalemated player (maybe with exception of "real draws" such as king and pawn versus king in not-winning position etc.), to punish the negligence of the stalemater (at least when I play it is usually that) and to reward the fact he has been able to safe himself into a stalemate. Is there no discussion around what the effect of such a change were?--131.159.76.173 (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: At high enough levels of play, this kind of accidental stalemate is essentially unheard of, so that stalemate becomes merely a last-ditch possibility of defense. Since the whole idea of playing good chess is to be able to analyse things accurately a few moves ahead, factoring this in is rewarded and negligence is punished. In casual games a 2/3-1/3 rule may make sense, but I presume this is why professionals tend to favour retaining the 1/2-1/2 score: there, it essentially never arises through the negligence of the player with the superior position. Double sharp (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a lot of theory presented 

message: Two knights and a king can force checkmate a lone king in this rule. Do you know any other endgames be affected by this alternative rule? --Ticgame (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, KP vs K becomes a forced win always for the stronger side, and KQ vs KP similarly. (I assume you want to make passing only legal when the player is actually stalemated; otherwise even KR vs K cannot be won, as it relies on zugzwang to confine the enemy king.) This is not surprising: stalemate tricks are usually pulled off by the weaker side, because it is easier for him to engage in self-paralysis. The stronger side would have a hard time paralysing all her pieces on an open board and no pins from the opponent possible to help her. So removing stalemate tends to remove any last hopes for a weaker side in an endgame. Double sharp (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: KP vs K would still be drawn when the superior side's king is stuck in front of a rook pawn. Double sharp (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How endgames would be affected by stalemated player forfeit his turn? 

message: Would it be interesting to have a diagram of a situation that is not only stalemate, but would remain stalemate if the king could move into check? It might be interesting considering that some of the quoted comments suggesting stalemate should be a win seems to disregard that case. MathHisSci (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't seem to make sense.  Most stalemate positions are that stalemates because the king would have to move into check, which is illegal.  If moving into check were legal, it would imply a checkmate.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: On the surface, that seems impossible. We'd like to see such a position if you have one! WHPratt (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

text:  I was thinking of a position like the following diagram.  MathHisSci (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see this happening. What, then, was white's previous move that got him into this? WHPratt (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Okay, I see that a white f-pawn could have captured a black unit on the g file, after which black advanced his pawn or moved his king. It could happen. WHPratt (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Where in the article do you think the example belongs? My example is obviously not from a real game, and I am not sure it belongs in the list of simple examples. But the list of simples examples still seems better than any other place in the current article and I don't think it warrants a new section on its own. MathHisSci (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say you should start with a reliable source for the  stalemate position you want to add. If you think the position has notable features that should be mentioned in the article, that needs a source too. Quale (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a relaible source that it is notable, at most some Internet discussion where people made the same observation. But we have loads of examples already of Zugzwang positions on the page, sometimes without any particular citation to demonstrate they are notable. The starting simple examples seem to be constructed by wikipedia editors, or might as well have been. I am suggesting adding one position (not the one I showed but rather the diagram Double Sharp showed previously) where the reason it is stalemate is not due to the ban on moving into check, because I think it is an interesting fact that such positions exist and because the current crop of examples combined with the quotation by Grandmaster Kaufman might give the impression that none exist. MathHisSci (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The stalemate rule is not about whether or not the king can move into check - it is about no legal move being available.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

text:  One thing - the criterion about it being stalemate even if the king could move into check doesn't apply in this position.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure what you mean? All I wanted to illustrate was that there are positions that remain stalemate even if we changed to rule to make moving into check legal, something that I felt was sometimes overlooked. Eg, the current article contains a suggestion that stalemate should be treated as the ultimate Zugzwang, which does not really make any sense for the position I constructed. MathHisSci (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that in the position you gave above, the king can't move into check anyway.  But now I think I see your point.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Well, I made a statement on this page back in 2010 that our definition of stalemate was imperfect. It should be based upon the unavoidable obligation to move in turn. Sometimes "check" is irrelevant! WHPratt (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example stalemate that would remain stalemate if you could move into check 

message: I think the term stalemate, in common usage, refers to a no-win situation more than the specific chess scenario.  As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it might be a good move to move the page to "Stalemate (chess)". I think it's OK to keep stalemate redirecting to that, rather than replacing it with the disambiguation page; but that way it's clear (e.g. in the visual editor) that this article is about stalemates in chess. What are your thoughts, everyone? --Daviddwd (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is probably a good idea.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Definitely not. The term stalemate originated with chess, and it has a very specific meaning. The popular figurative meaning (an impasse) is actually incorrect, and is used by people who don't know chess and don't understand that there are many ways to draw in chess besides stalemate. At best the popular usage deserves a passing mention. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Daviddwd, I think you are under a few misapprehensions. As MaxBrowne2 says, the common meaning of "stalemate" originates from chess. Also "no-win situation" does not capture the common meaning of "stalemate" very accurately as stalemate means "impasse" or "deadlock". In fact "no-win situation" is closer in meaning to the chess term "zugzwang", a very different concept than "stalemate".  I reverted your brief description of stalemate not because it didn't agree with the chess definition of the term, I reverted it because it was an incorrect description of stalemate in any usage.  Also there's no need to move this page. No-win situation already has its own page, and it is not synonymous or even closely related to stalemate. Quale (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quale, it doesn't matter whether it's synonymous or even closely related with the chess term; it matters that the same word "stalemate", etymologically derived from the chess term, is more commonly used with that meaning, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Daviddwd (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  I understand that it originates with chess, but that's not how it's mainly used anymore. I'm OK with the reversion. However, I don't think the (correct) line of reasoning that "stalemate comes from chess" and "another chess term is closer to 'no-win situation' (stalemate's more common meaning today)" is sound, because it doesn't address the point of whether or not it is the primary topic. --Daviddwd (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't agree that the colloquial/figurative usage is the primary topic. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with MaxBrowne2. Is there a page on the stalemate (disambiguation) page that you think qualifies as the primary topic in place of chess stalemate? I don't see it. Quale (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that "stalemate" in the colloquial sense isn't the primary topic. For one, sources that use the term "stalemate" don't discuss it in detail when not talking about the chess stalemate. Coverage of the term itself is overwhelmingly about stalemate in chess.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

text: On second thought, "stalemate" not in the context of a game like chess is just a definition and wouldn't merit an article.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change title to "Stalemate (chess)"? 

message: Larry Kaufman's statement that with a stalemate "any move would get your king taken" overlooks another type of stalemate where there is no move that would get your king taken, simply because there are no moves at all…a blockaded position. In discussing how stalemates should be scored, I believe these two types could be treated differently. 108.20.114.62 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No reliable sources give that treatment, so we shouldn't engage in our own WP:Original research. --Jasper Deng (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of original research or reliable sources. If stalemate = win because the king is in check no matter what move is made, and there are no physical moves that CAN be made, then Kaufman's logic of stalemate = win fails. It's patently obvious. 108.20.114.62 (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We can say that not all stalemates rely on not being allowed to move into check, but nothing more; saying these are two "types" of stalemate is original research.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But since Kaufman's logic doesn't apply to all stalemate positions, doesn't that failure alone mean there are different types? 108.20.114.62 (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: His statement is not completely accurate, but there is no distinction between "can't put your king in check" and "no move at all".  The latter would almost never occur in a game, I think.  Also, he doesn't say that "stalemate = win".  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: He does advocate for stalemate = win for the player causing the stalemate, though. It is possible to make the distinction; if the object of the game were changed from checkmate to capture the king, then one type of stalemate would be a win under that, while others would be true stalemates. But it's original research to speculate on that. In normal chess there's no distinction between moving into check and other illegal moves.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW...if White is stalemated, that doesn't mean Black "caused" it. It could be that White made a move to put itself in a stalemate position and Black had no move to undo the stalemate. Even so, by the FIDE definition of stalemate, it wouldn't be a draw until it was White's move again. 71.184.87.187 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 types of stalemate...treat differently? 

message: Deleted the line - see section 3, "Effect on endgames" for details. Martin Rattigan (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  KPK in Effect on endgame theory 

message: Changed the text. See section 3, "Effect on endgames" for details. --Martin Rattigan (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  KBK/KNK in Effect on endgame theory 

message: Deleted the line.  See section 3, "Effect on endgames" for details. --Martin Rattigan (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  KRKB in Effect on endgame theory 

message: Directing tournaments among children at neighborhood libraries, I used to see stalemates all the time.  I admit, though, the players didn't always notice it or deal with it appropriately, unless the director was right there.  Just an amusing recollection.
I think we should be very careful about declaring what is "common" and what is "rare".  But it would be appropriate at this point to clarify why stalemate isn't a good generic synonym for draw, i.e. there are also draws by repetition, draws by insufficient material, and draws by agreement. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't mythologize "grandmaster level" either, 1200 level play isn't substantially different than "grandmaster level" play, they just make more blunders. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

text: As a chess player you know the statement to be substantially correct, so why remove it? Asking for a cite is fine. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the rest of the cited source, which goes on about how stalemate influences all of endgame theory due to its importance in K+PvK, is "textbook chess", and this is as good a chance as any to cite it. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to think this too. But Larry Kaufman did the experiment and detailed the results in one of his books. I added the conclusion to the article: in short, actually stalemate is not as big an influence as you'd think. Apparently the problem is that while K+PvK becomes a forced win for the superior side, K+minor vs K still isn't, and the inferior side can usually steer things into that. So, what you'd really need to do to create a noticeable effect is to reinstate not just the old stalemate=win rule, but also the old bare king rule. Double sharp (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draws common, stalemate rare? 

message: When both stalemate and bare king were victories, I really wonder how this position (taken from this chessvariants.com comment) would have been evaluated. In today's chess the only move to draw is 1.Nc2+!, forcing 1...Rxc2+ 2.Kxc2 stalemate. However, when bare king was a victory, 1...Rxc2+ would seem to be a win for Black, because White cannot immediately bare the Black king in retaliation. This also seems unfair, however, because at the time stalemate was also a victory for the stalemating player, and after 2.Kxc2 Black is forced to commit suicide. Unfortunately I cannot recall this situation discussed in any source: I suspect that "legalistically" it would have been a Black win back then, but that if it had ever come up, someone would probably have made an argument. So I put it on this talk page in case someone ever finds an RS discussion of this situation. Double sharp (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalemate vs bare king 

message: The redirect Steelmate has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Rusalkii (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Steelmate]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]