Stalemate


Stalemate is a situation in the game of chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check but has no legal move. The rules of chess provide that when stalemate occurs, the game ends as a draw. During the endgame, stalemate is a resource that can enable the player with the inferior position to draw the game rather than lose. In more complex positions, stalemate is much rarer, usually taking the form of a swindle that succeeds only if the superior side is inattentive. Stalemate is also a common theme in endgame studies and other chess problems.
The outcome of a stalemate was [|standardized as a draw] in the 19th century. Before this standardization, its treatment varied widely, including being deemed a win for the stalemating player, a half-win for that player, or a loss for that player; not being permitted; and resulting in the stalemated player missing a turn. Some regional chess variants have not allowed a player to play a stalemating move. In losing chess, another chess variant, it is typically treated as a win for the stalemated player.
In popular usage, the word stalemate refers to a conflict that has reached an impasse, and in which resolution or further action seems highly difficult or unlikely.

Examples

With Black to move, Black is stalemated in diagrams 1 to 5. Stalemate is an important factor in the endgame – the endgame set-up in diagram 1, for example, quite frequently is relevant in play. The position in diagram 1 occurred in an 1898 game between Amos Burn and Harry Pillsbury and also in a 1925 game between Savielly Tartakower and Richard Réti. The same position, except shifted to the e-, occurred in a 2009 game between Gata Kamsky and Vladimir Kramnik.
The position in diagram 4 is an example of a pawn drawing against a queen. Stalemates of this sort can often save a player from losing an apparently hopeless position. In that position, even if it were White's move, there is no way to avoid this stalemate without allowing Black's pawn to promote..
In diagram 5, Black had forced the position to become stalemate, seeing that the white bishop could not force the black king to go away from the queening square of the rook pawn.

In the endgame

As the previous section suggests, stalemate is a typical element of the endgame, often enabling the player with the inferior position to draw the game. Concerning chess, below are some examples of this from actual play.

Anand versus Kramnik

In this game Viswanathan Anand–Vladimir Kramnik from the 2007 World Chess Championship, Black must capture the pawn on f5, causing stalemate.

Korchnoi versus Karpov

An intentional stalemate occurred on the 124th move of the fifth game of the 1978 World Championship match between Viktor Korchnoi and Anatoly Karpov. The game had been a theoretical draw for many moves,. The players were not on speaking terms, however, so neither would offer a draw by agreement. Korchnoi said that it gave him pleasure to stalemate Karpov and that it was slightly humiliating.

Bernstein versus Smyslov

Sometimes a surprise stalemate saves a game. In the game between Ossip Bernstein–Vasily Smyslov, Black should win by sacrificing the f-pawn and using the king to support the b-pawn. However, Smyslov thought it was good to advance the b-pawn, because of the skewer of the white rook if it captures the pawn once it is on b2. Play went:
Now if 2...Rh2+ 3.Kf3! Rxb2 is stalemate. Smyslov moved 2...Kg4 and the game was drawn after 3.Kf1 .

Matulović versus Minev

In the Bernstein–Smyslov game, the possibility of stalemate arose because of a blunder. It can arise without one, as in the game Milan Matulović–Nikolay Minev. Play continued:
The only meaningful attempt to make progress. Now all black moves lose, with one exception.
and now 4.Rxa6 would be stalemate. White played 4.Rc5+ instead, and the game was drawn several moves later.

Williams versus Harrwitz

In the game Elijah Williams–Daniel Harrwitz, Black was up a knight and a pawn in an endgame. This would normally be a decisive advantage, but Black could find no way to make progress because of various stalemate resources available to White. The game continued:
Avoiding the threatened 73...Nc2+.
76...Nc2+ 77.Rxc2+! Kxc2 is stalemate.
77...Kxc3 is stalemate.
79...Rd3 80.Rxd3+! leaves Black with insufficient material to win after 80...Nxd3 81.Kxa2, or a standard fortress in a corner draw after 80...Kxd3.
Now the players agreed to a draw, since 84...Kxb3 or 84...Rxb3 is stalemate, as is 84...Ra8 85.Rxc3+! Kxc3.
Black could still win the game until his critical mistake on move 82. Instead, 82...Nb4 wins, for example: 83.Rc8 Re3 84.Rb8+ Kc5 85.Rc8+ Kd5 86.Rd8+ Kc6 87.Ra8 Re1+ 88.Kb2 Kc5 89.Kc3 a1=Q+ and wins.

Carlsen versus Van Wely

This 2007 game, Magnus Carlsen–Loek van Wely, ended in stalemate. Sixteen-year-old Carlsen used the "second-rank defense" in a rook and bishop versus rook endgame for 46 moves. The fifty-move rule was about to come into effect, under which Carlsen could claim a draw. The game ended with
stalemate.

More complex examples

Stalemate can also occur with more pieces on the board. Outside of relatively simple endgame positions, such as those above, stalemate occurs rarely, usually when the side with the superior position has overlooked the possibility of stalemate. This is typically realized by the inferior side's sacrifice of one or more pieces in order to force stalemate. A piece that is offered as a sacrifice to bring about stalemate is sometimes called a desperado.

Evans versus Reshevsky

One of the best-known examples of the desperado is the game Larry Evans–Samuel Reshevsky that was dubbed "The Swindle of the Century". Evans sacrificed his queen on move 49 and offered his rook on move 50. White's rook has been called the eternal rook. Capturing it results in stalemate, but otherwise it stays on the seventh and checks Black's king ad infinitum. The game would inevitably end in a draw by agreement, by threefold repetition, or by an eventual claim under the fifty-move rule.
After 48...Qg6! 49.Rf8 Qe6! 50.Rh8+ Kg6, Black remains a piece ahead after 51.Qxe6 Nxe6, or after 51.gxf4 Re1+ and 52...Qa2+.

Gelfand versus Kramnik

The position at right occurred in Boris Gelfand–Vladimir Kramnik, 1994 FIDE Candidates match, game 6, in Sanghi Nagar, India. Kramnik, down two pawns and on the defensive, would be very happy with a draw. Gelfand has just played 67. Re4–e7, a strong-looking move that threatens 68.Qxf6, winning a third pawn, or 68.Rc7, further constricting Black. Black responded 67... Qc1 If White takes Black's undefended rook with 68.Qxd8, Black's desperado queen forces the draw with 68...Qh1+ 69.Kg3 Qh2+!, compelling 70.Kxh2 stalemate. If White avoids the stalemate with 68.Rxg7+ Kxg7 69.Qxd8, Black draws by perpetual check with 69...Qh1+ 70.Kg3 Qg1+ 71.Kf4 Qc1+! 72.Ke4 Qc6+! 73.Kd3 Qxf3+! 74.Kd2 Qg2+! 75.Kc3 Qc6+ 76.Kb4 Qb5+ 77.Ka3 Qd3+. Gelfand played 68. d5 instead, but still only drew.

Troitsky versus Vogt

In Troitsky–, 1896, the famous endgame study composer Alexey Troitsky pulled off an elegant swindle in actual play. After Troitsky's 1. Rd1!, Black fell into the trap with the seemingly crushing 1... Bh3?, threatening 2...Qg2#. The game concluded 2. Rxd8+ Kxd8 3. Qd1+! Qxd1 stalemate. White's bishop, knight, and f-pawn are all and unable to move.

In studies

Stalemate is a frequent theme in endgame studies and other chess compositions. An example is the "White to Play and Draw" study at right, composed by the American master Frederick Rhine and published in 2006. White saves a draw with 1.Ne5+! Black wins after 1.Nb4+? Kb5! or 1.Qe8+? Bxe8 2.Ne5+ Kb5! 3.Rxb2+ Nb3. 1... Bxe5 After 1...Kb5? 2.Rxb2+ Nb3 3.Rxc4! Qxe3 4.Rxb3+! Qxb3 5.Qh1! Bf5+ 6.Kd8!, White is winning. 2. Qe8+! 2.Qxe5? Qb7+ 3.Kd8 Qd7#. 2... Bxe8 3. Rh6+ Bd6 3...Kb5 4.Rxb6+ Kxb6 5.Nxc4+ also leads to a drawn endgame. Not 5.Rxb2+? Bxb2 6.Nc4+ Kb5 7.Nxb2 Bh5! trapping White's knight. 4. Rxd6+! Kxd6 5. Nxc4+! Nxc4 6. Rxb6+ Nxb6+ Moving the king is actually a better try, but the resulting endgame of two knights and a bishop against a rook is a well-established theoretical draw . 7. Kd8! Black is three pieces ahead, but if White is allowed to take the bishop, the two knights are insufficient to force checkmate. The only way to save the bishop is to move it, resulting in stalemate. A similar idea occasionally enables the inferior side to save a draw in the ending of bishop, knight, and king versus lone king.
At right is a composition by A. J. Roycroft which was published in the British Chess Magazine in 1957. White draws with 1. c7! after which there are two main lines:
Some chess problems require "White to move and stalemate Black in n moves". Problemists have also tried to construct the shortest possible game ending in stalemate. Sam Loyd devised one just ten moves long: 1.e3 a5 2.Qh5 Ra6 3.Qxa5 h5 4.Qxc7 Rah6 5.h4 f6 6.Qxd7+ Kf7 7.Qxb7 Qd3 8.Qxb8 Qh7 9.Qxc8 Kg6 10.Qe6. A similar stalemate is reached after: 1.d4 c5 2.dxc5 f6 3.Qxd7+ Kf7 4.Qxd8 Bf5 5.Qxb8 h5 6.Qxa8 Rh6 7.Qxb7 a6 8.Qxa6 Bh7 9.h4 Kg6 10.Qe6.
Loyd also demonstrated that stalemate can occur with all the pieces on the board: 1.d4 d6 2.Qd2 e5 3.a4 e4 4.Qf4 f5 5.h3 Be7 6.Qh2 Be6 7.Ra3 c5 8.Rg3 Qa5+ 9.Nd2 Bh4 10.f3 Bb3 11.d5 e3 12.c4 f4. A variation of this game has even occurred in a tournament game.

Double stalemate

There are peculiar chess compositions featuring double stalemate. At left and at right are double stalemate positions, in which neither side has a legal move. Double stalemate is theoretically possible in a practical game, though is not known to ever have happened. Consider the following position:
The game draws after a waiting move like 1.Rg2. However, White has 1.Rb2?, an interesting blunder: if Black errs by 1...cxb2+? then White draws by 2.Kb1, creating a double stalemate position. Black could win by 1...c2! putting White in zugzwang.
The fastest known game ending in a double stalemate position was discovered by Enzo Minerva and published in the Italian newspaper l'Unità on 14 August 2007: 1.c4 d5 2.Qb3 Bh3 3.gxh3 f5 4.Qxb7 Kf7 5.Qxa7 Kg6 6.f3 c5 7.Qxe7 Rxa2 8.Kf2 Rxb2 9.Qxg7+ Kh5 10.Qxg8 Rxb1 11.Rxb1 Kh4 12.Qxh8 h5 13.Qh6 Bxh6 14.Rxb8 Be3+ 15.dxe3 Qxb8 16.Kg2 Qf4 17.exf4 d4 18.Be3 dxe3.

History of the stalemate rule

The stalemate rule has had a convoluted history. Although today stalemate is universally recognized as a draw, for much of the game's history that has not been the case. In the forerunners to modern chess, such as chaturanga, stalemate was a win for the side administering it. This practice persisted in chess as played in early 15th-century Spain. However, Lucena treated stalemate as an inferior form of victory, which in games played for money won only half the stake, and this continued to be the case in Spain as late as 1600. The rule in England from about 1600 to 1800 was that stalemate was a loss for the player administering it, a rule that the eminent chess historian H. J. R. Murray believes may have been adopted from Russian chess. That rule disappeared in England before 1820, being replaced by the French and Italian rule that a stalemate was a drawn game.
Assume that Black is stalemated. Throughout history, such a stalemate has at various times been:
Periodically, writers have argued that stalemate should again be made a win for the side causing the stalemate. Grandmaster Larry Kaufman writes, "In my view, calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents the ultimate zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken". The British master T. H. Tylor argued in a 1940 article in the British Chess Magazine that the present rule, treating stalemate as a draw, "is without historical foundation and irrational, and primarily responsible for a vast percentage of draws, and hence should be abolished". Years later, Fred Reinfeld wrote, "When Tylor wrote his attack on the stalemate rule, he released about his unhappy head a swarm of peevish maledictions that are still buzzing." Larry Evans calls the proposal to make stalemate a win for the stalemating player a "crude proposal that... would radically alter centuries of tradition and make chess boring". This rule change would cause a greater emphasis on ; an extra pawn would be a greater advantage than it is today.

Effect on endgame theory

If stalemate were a loss for the player unable to move, the outcome of some endgames would be affected. In some situations the superior side can force stalemate but not checkmate. In others, the defending player can use stalemate as a defensive technique to avoid losing. If the proposed rule change were made, both of these situations would become wins for the superior side instead of draws.
Not all variants of chess consider the stalemate to be a draw. Many regional variants, as well some variants of Western chess, have adopted their own rules on how to treat the stalemated player. In chaturanga, which is widely considered to be the common ancestor of all variants of chess, a stalemate was a win for the stalemated player. Around the 7th century, this game was adopted in the Middle East as shatranj with very similar rules to its predecessor; however, the stalemate rule was changed to its exact opposite: i.e. it was a win for the player delivering the stalemate. This game was in turn introduced to the western world, where it would eventually evolve to modern-day chess, although the stalemate rule for Western chess was not standardised as a draw until the 19th century.

Modern Asian variants

Chaturanga also evolved into several other games in various regions of Asia, all of which have varying rules on stalemating:
The majority of variants of Western chess do not specify in their set of rules what happens when a player is stalemated, which would imply that the rule is the same as in standard Western chess, i.e. a draw. There are some variants, however, where the rule is specified and differs from the rules of standard chess:
Stalemate has become a widely used metaphor for other situations where there is a conflict or contest between two parties, such as war or political negotiations, and neither side is able to achieve victory, resulting in what is also called an impasse, a deadlock, or a Mexican standoff. Chess writers note that this usage is a misnomer because, unlike in chess, the situation is often a temporary one that is ultimately resolved, even if it seems currently intractable .