View source for Stalemate

{{Short description|Situation in chess without a legal move}}
{{Hatnote group|
{{Other uses}}
{{For|draws in chess in general|Draw (chess)}}}}
{{Chess diagram
| tright
| Example of stalemate
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |kd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |ql|  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|kl|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Black to move is stalemated. Black is not in [[check (chess)|check]] and has no legal move since every square the [[king (chess)|king]] might move to is attacked by White's [[queen (chess)|queen]].<ref>{{harvcolnb|Polgar|Truong|2005|p=33}}</ref>
}}

'''Stalemate''' is a situation in [[chess]] where the player whose turn it is to move is not in [[check (chess)|check]] and has no legal move. Stalemate results in a [[draw (chess)|draw]]. During the [[chess endgame|endgame]], stalemate is a resource that can enable the player with the inferior position to draw the game rather than lose.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Hooper|Whyld|1992|p=387}}</ref> In more complex positions, stalemate is much rarer, usually the result of a [[swindle (chess)|swindle]] that succeeds only if the superior side is inattentive.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-04-23 |title=Grivas on the Mad Rook |url=https://en.chessbase.com/post/grivas-on-the-mad-rook |access-date=2025-08-10 |website=Chess News |language=en}}</ref> Stalemate is also a common theme in [[endgame study|endgame studies]] and other [[chess problem]]s.

The outcome of a stalemate was standardized as a draw in the 19th century {{See below|text={{Section link||History of the stalemate rule}}, below}}. 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. Stalemate rules vary in [[List of chess variants|variants and other games of the chess family]].
{{AN chess|pos=toc}}

==Etymology and usage==
The first recorded use of stalemate is from 1765. It is a compounding of [[Middle English]] ''stale'' and ''mate'' (meaning [[checkmate]]). ''Stale'' is probably derived from Anglo-French ''estale'' meaning "standstill", a [[cognate]] of "stand" and "stall", both ultimately derived from the [[Proto-Indo-European]] root ''*sta-''. The first recorded use in a figurative sense is in 1885.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Harper |first1=Douglas |title=stalemate {{!}} |url=https://www.etymonline.com/word/stalemate |website=Online Etymology Dictionary |access-date=6 July 2022 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Definition of STALEMATE |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stalemate |website=www.merriam-webster.com |publisher=Merriam-Webster |access-date=6 July 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

Stalemate has become a widely used [[metaphor]] for other situations where there is a conflict or contest between two parties, such as war or [[politics|political]] negotiations, and neither side is able to achieve victory, resulting in what is also called an [[impasse]], a [[political deadlock|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.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Golombek|1977|p=304}}</ref><ref>{{harvcolnb|Soltis|1978|p=54}}</ref><ref>Golombek wrote, "The word 'stalemate' has been taken into the English language to mean (wrongly) a temporary state of impasse." Soltis wrote:<blockquote>There is a world of difference between no choice ... and a poor choice. Editorial writers often talk about a political stalemate when the analogy they probably have in mind is a political "[[zugzwang]]". In stalemate a player has no legal moves, period. In zugzwang he has nothing pleasant to do.</blockquote></ref><ref>
{{cite news
 |last=Purnick|first=Joyce 
 |date=1988-01-06
 |title=Threat by Wagner to Resign Solved Schools Stalemate
 |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DE1438F935A35752C0A96E948260
 |access-date=2013-07-05
 |work=[[The New York Times]]
}}</ref> The term "stalemate" is sometimes used incorrectly as a generic term for a draw in chess. While [[draw (chess)|draws]] are common, they are rarely the direct result of stalemate.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=C51JAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22stalemate+is+rare%22&pg=PA342 British Chess Magazine, September 1911, p. 342. ''Stalemate''.]</ref>

==Examples==
{| align="left"
|-valign="top"
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tleft
| Diagram 1
|  |  |  |  |  |kd|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |pl|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |kl|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Black to move is stalemated (see [[King and pawn versus king endgame]]). <br /><small>Burn vs. Pilsbury, 1898</small> 
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tleft
| Diagram 2
|kd|bd|  |  |  |  |  |rl
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |kl|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Black to move is stalemated. The [[bishop (chess)|bishop]] has no legal moves because the [[rook (chess)|rook]] [[pin (chess)|pins]] it to the king.
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tleft
| Diagram 3
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |kl|  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |ql|  |  |  |  |  |  
|pd|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|kd|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Black to move is stalemated (see [[Queen versus pawn endgame]]).
}}
|-
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tleft
| Diagram 4
|kd|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|pl|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|kl|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |bl|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Black to move is stalemated (see [[Wrong bishop]], [[Wrong rook pawn]]).
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tleft
| Diagram 5
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |pd|  |pd|pd 
|  |  |  |  |kl|bd|rd|kd
| Black to move is stalemated (a deadlock).
}}
|}
{{Clear}}

With Black to move, Black is stalemated in diagrams 1 to 5. Stalemate is an important factor in the [[chess endgame|endgame]] – the endgame setup in diagram 1, for example, quite frequently is relevant in play (see [[King and pawn versus king endgame]]). The position in diagram 1 occurred in an 1898 game between [[Amos Burn]] and [[Harry Pillsbury]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1035968 |title=Burn vs. Pillsbury, 1898 |website=[[Chessgames.com]] }}</ref> and also in a 1925 game between [[Savielly Tartakower]] and [[Richard Réti]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1007138 |title=Tartakower vs. Réti, 1925 |website=[[Chessgames.com]] }}</ref> The same position, except shifted to the e-{{chessgloss|file}}, occurred in a 2009 game between [[Gata Kamsky]] and [[Vladimir Kramnik]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1539787 |title=Kamsky vs. Kramnik |website=[[Chessgames.com]] }}</ref>

The position in diagram 3 is an example of a [[pawn (chess)|pawn]] drawing against a [[queen (chess)|queen]]. Stalemates of this sort can often save a player from losing an apparently hopeless position (see [[Queen versus pawn endgame]]).

The position in diagram 5 is a special kind of stalemate, in which no move is possible even if one ignores the need to avoid self-check. George P. Jelliss has called this type of stalemate a '''deadlock'''. Adding a White knight on f2 would produce a '''checklock''': a checkmate position where no moves are possible, even if one ignores the need to avoid self-check. In general, positions with no moves at all available (even ignoring the need to avoid self-check) are called '''locks'''.<ref name=lock>{{cite magazine |last=Jelliss |first=George P. |date=1990 |title=The Royal Game |url=https://www.mayhematics.com/v/vol1/vc04.pdf |magazine=Variant Chess |issue=4 |location= |page=37 |publisher= |access-date=20 October 2023}}</ref>
{{Clear}}

===Examples from games=== 

====Anand versus Kramnik====
{{Chess diagram  
| tright
| Anand vs. Kramnik, 2007
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |pd|  
|  |  |  |  |  |pd|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |pl|  |kl
|  |  |  |  |kd|  |  |pl
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|Before 65...Kxf5, stalemate
}}
In this position from the game [[Viswanathan Anand]]–[[Vladimir Kramnik]] from the [[2007 World Chess Championship]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1472881 |title=Anand vs. Kramnik, Mexico City 2007 |website=[[Chessgames.com]] }}</ref> Black played 65...Kxf5, stalemating White.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Benko|2008|p=49}}</ref> (Any other move by Black loses.)
{{Clear}}

====Korchnoi versus Karpov====
{{Chess diagram  
| tright
| Korchnoi vs. Karpov, 1978
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |kl|bl|kd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|pd|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|pl|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
| Position after 124.Bc3–g7
}}
An intentional stalemate occurred on the 124th move of the fifth game of the [[World Chess Championship 1978|1978 World Championship]] match between [[Viktor Korchnoi]] and [[Anatoly Karpov]].<ref>[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068051 Karpov vs. Korchnoi]</ref> The game had been a theoretical draw for many moves.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Károlyi|Aplin|2007|p=170}}</ref><ref>{{harvcolnb|Griffiths|1992|pp=43–46}}</ref> White's bishop is useless; it [[wrong rook pawn#Korchnoi versus Karpov|cannot defend the queening square at a8]] nor attack the black pawn on the light a4-square. If the white king heads towards the black pawn, the black king can move towards a8 and set up a [[fortress (chess)|fortress]].

The players were not on speaking terms, however, so neither would offer a [[draw by agreement]]. On his 124th move, White played 124.Bg7, delivering stalemate. Korchnoi said that it gave him pleasure to stalemate Karpov and that it was slightly humiliating.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Kasparov|2006|p=120}}</ref> Until 2021, this was the longest game played in a [[World Chess Championship]] final match, as well as the only World Championship game to end in stalemate before 2007.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Fox|James|1993|p=236}}</ref>
{{Clear}}

====Bernstein versus Smyslov====
{| align="right"
|-valign="top"
|+ Bernstein vs. Smyslov, 1946
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
| 
|  |rl|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |kd|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |pd|  |  
|  |pd|  |  |  |  |  |rd
|  |  |  |  |kl|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
| Black to move
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
| 
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |kd|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |pd|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |kl|  |  
|  |rd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
| Position after 61...Rxb2 (analysis)
}}
|}

Sometimes, a surprise stalemate saves a game. In the game [[Ossip Bernstein]]–[[Vasily Smyslov]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1125504 |title=Bernstein vs. Smyslov, Groningen 1946 |website=[[Chessgames.com]] }}</ref> (first diagram), Black can 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 he could win the white rook with a [[Skewer (chess)|skewer]] if it captured the pawn. Play went:

:'''59... b2{{chesspunc|??}} 60. Rxb2{{chesspunc|!}}'''
Now 60...Rh2+ 61.Kf3! Rxb2 would be stalemate (second diagram). Smyslov played 60...Kg4, and the game was drawn after 61.Kf1 (see [[Rook and pawn versus rook endgame]]).<ref>{{harvcolnb|Minev|2004|p=21}}</ref>
{{Clear}}

====Matulović versus Minev====
{| align="right"
|-valign="top"
|+ Matulović vs. Minev, 1956
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|pl|rl|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |kd|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |pl|kl|  
|rd|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| White to move
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
| 
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|rl|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |kd
|  |  |  |  |  |pl|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |kl
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
| Stalemate if White had played 4.Rxa6
}}
|}

Whereas the possibility of stalemate arose in the Bernstein–Smyslov game because of a [[blunder (chess)|blunder]], it can also arise without one, as in the game [[Milan Matulović]]–[[Nikolay Minev]] (first diagram). Play continued:

:'''1. Rc6 Kg5 2. Kh3 Kh5 3. f4'''
The only meaningful attempt to make progress. Now all moves by Black (like 3...Ra3+{{chesspunc|?}}) lose, with one exception.

:'''3... Rxa6!'''
Now 4.Rxa6 would be stalemate. White played 4.Rc5+ instead, and the game was drawn several moves later.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Minev|2004|p=22}}</ref>
{{Clear}}

====Williams versus Harrwitz====
{| align="right"
|-valign="top"
|+ Williams vs. Harrwitz, 1846
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |rd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |nd|  |  |  |kd|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|pd|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|kl|  |  |  |  |  |rl|
| Position after 72.Ka1
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |kd|  |  |  |  |  
|rd|rl|nd|  |  |  |  |  
|pd|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|kl|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Position after 84.Rb3! If Black takes the rook either way, the result is stalemate.
}}
|}

In the game [[Elijah Williams (chess player)|Elijah Williams]]–[[Daniel Harrwitz]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001276 |title=Williams vs. Harrwitz, London 1846 |website=[[Chessgames.com]] }}</ref> (first diagram), Black was up a [[knight (chess)|knight]] and a pawn in an endgame. This would normally be a decisive {{chessgloss|material}} advantage, but Black could find no way to make progress because of various stalemate resources available to White. The game continued:

:'''72... Ra8 73. Rc1'''
Avoiding the threatened 73...Nc2+.

:'''73... Ke3 74. Rc4 Ra4 75. Rc1 Kd2 76. Rc4 Kd3'''
76...Nc2+ 77.Rxc2+! Kxc2 is stalemate.

:'''77. Rc3+! Kd4'''
77...Kxc3 is stalemate.

:'''78. Rc1 Ra3 79. Rd1+ Kc5'''
79...Rd3 80.Rxd3+! leaves Black with either insufficient material to win after 80...Nxd3 81.Kxa2 or a standard [[fortress (chess)#Fortress in a corner|fortress in a corner]] draw after 80...Kxd3.

:'''80. Rc1+ Kb5 81. Rc7 Nd5 82. Rc2 Nc3?? 83. Rb2+ Kc4 84. Rb3!''' (see second diagram)
Now the players [[Draw by agreement|agreed to a draw]], since 84...Kxb3 or 84...Rxb3 is stalemate, as is 84...Ra8 85.Rxc3+! Kxc3.

Black could still have won the game until his critical mistake on move 82. Instead of 82...Nc3, 82...Nb4 wins; for example, after 83.Rc8 Re3 84.Rb8+ Kc5 85.Rc8+ Kd5 86.Rd8+ Kc6 87.Ra8 Re1+ 88.Kb2 Kc5 89.Kc3 a1=Q+, Black wins.{{citation needed|date=November 2012}}

====Carlsen versus Van Wely====
{{Chess diagram  
| tleft
| 
|  |  |  |  |  |rd|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |kd|bd|  |  |  
|  |  |rl|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |kl|  |  |  |
| White to make his 109th move
}}
This 2007 game, [[Magnus Carlsen]]–[[Loek van Wely]], ended in stalemate.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1448451 |title=Carlsen vs. Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2007 |website=[[Chessgames.com]] }}</ref> White 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 White could claim a draw. The game ended:

:{{pad}}'''109. Rd2+ Bxd2 {{chessAN|½–½}}'''
White was stalemated.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Nunn|2009|p=200}}</ref>
{{Clear}}

===More complex examples===
{{Main|Desperado (chess)}}
Although stalemate usually occurs in the endgame, it 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.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Pachman|1973|p=17}}</ref> 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 (chess)|desperado]]''.

====Evans versus Reshevsky====
{| align="right"
|-valign="top"
|+ Evans vs. Reshevsky, 1963
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |ql|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |rl|pd|kd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |pd|  |  |pd|  |qd|pd
|  |pl|  |  |pl|nd|  |  
|  |  |  |  |rd|pl|pl|pl
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |kl
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Position before White's 47th move
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |  |  |  |  |kd|  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |rl|  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |pd|  |  |pd|  |  |pd
|  |pl|  |  |pl|nd|  |pl
|  |  |  |  |  |pl|qd|  
|  |  |  |  |rd|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |kl
| Position after 50.Rxg7+!, the ''eternal rook''
}}
|}

One of the best-known examples of the [[Desperado (chess)|desperado]] is the game [[Larry Evans (chess grandmaster)|Larry Evans]]–[[Samuel Reshevsky]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1252040 |title=Evans vs. Reshevsky, New York 1963/64 |website=[[Chessgames.com]] }}</ref> that was dubbed "The [[Swindle (chess)|Swindle]] of the Century".<ref>[[Larry Evans (chess grandmaster)|Larry Evans]], ''Chess Catechism'', Simon and Schuster, 1970, p. 66. SBN 671-21531-0. It appears that Evans himself was the first to refer to the game as the "Swindle of the Century" in print, in his annotations in ''American Chess Quarterly'' magazine, of which he was the Editor-in-Chief. ''American Chess Quarterly'', Vol. 3, No. 3 (Winter, 1964), p. 171. [[Hans Kmoch]] referred to the conclusion of the game as "A Hilarious Finish". Hans Kmoch, "United States Championship", ''Chess Review'', March 1964, pp. 76–79, at p. 79. Also available on DVD (p. 89 of "Chess Review 1964" PDF file).</ref> 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 {{chessgloss|rank}} and checks Black's king ''[[ad infinitum]]'' (i.e. [[perpetual check]]). The game would inevitably end in a [[draw by agreement]], by [[threefold repetition]], or by an eventual claim under the [[fifty-move rule]].<ref>{{harvcolnb|Averbakh|1996|pp=80–81}}</ref>

:'''47. h4! Re2+ 48. Kh1 Qxg3??'''
After 48...Qg6! 49.Rf8 Qe6! 50.Rh8+ Kg6, Black remains a piece ahead after 51.Qxe6 Nxe6, or {{chessgloss|forced mate|forces mate}} after 51.gxf4 Re1+ and 52...Qa2+.<ref>[[Hans Kmoch]], "United States Championship", ''Chess Review'', March 1964, pp. 76–79, at p. 79. Also available on DVD (p. 89 of "Chess Review 1964" PDF file).</ref>

:'''49. Qg8+! Kxg8 50. Rxg7+!'''
{{Clear}}

====Gelfand versus Kramnik====
{| align="right"
|-valign="top"
|+ Gelfand vs. Kramnik, 1994
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |qd|rd|  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |rl|  |pd|kd
|pd|ql|  |  |  |pd|  |pd
|pl|  |  |  |  |pl|  |pl
|  |  |  |pl|  |  |pl|  
|  |  |  |  |  |pl|  |kl
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Position after 67.Re7
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |  |ql|  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |rl|  |pd|kd
|pd|  |  |  |  |pd|  |pd
|pl|  |  |  |  |pl|  |pl
|  |  |  |pl|  |  |pl|  
|  |  |  |  |  |pl|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |kl
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Possible stalemate
}}
|}
The position at right occurred in [[Boris Gelfand]]–[[Vladimir Kramnik]], 1994 [[FIDE]] Candidates match, game 6, in [[Sanghi Nagar]], India.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1043685 |title=Gelfand vs. Kramnik, Sanghi Nagar 1994 |website=[[Chessgames.com]] }}</ref> Kramnik, down two pawns and on the defensive, would be very happy with a draw. Gelfand has just played '''67. Re4–e7{{chesspunc|?}}''' (first diagram), a strong-looking move that threatens 68.Qxf6, winning a third pawn, or 68.Rc7, further constricting Black. Black responded '''67... Qc1{{chesspunc|!}}''' If White takes Black's undefended [[rook (chess)|rook]] with 68.Qxd8, Black's desperado queen forces the draw with 68...Qh1+ 69.Kg3 Qh2+!, compelling 70.Kxh2 stalemate (second diagram). 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{{chesspunc|!?}} (73.d5 Qc4+; 73.Qd5 Qc2+) Qxf3+! 74.Kd2 Qg2+! 75.Kc3 Qc6+ 76.Kb4 Qb5+ 77.Ka3 Qd3+. Gelfand played '''68. d5''' instead but still only drew.
{{Clear}}

====Troitsky versus Vogt{{anchor|Troitzky versus Vogt}}====
{| align="right"
|-valign="top"
|+ Troitsky vs. Vogt, 1896
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |kd|rd|  |  |  |  
|  |pd|pd|bd|  |pd|pd|  
|  |bd|  |  |  |  |rd|  
|pd|pl|  |  |pd|  |  |  
|pl|  |  |  |pl|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |qd|nl|  
|  |  |ql|  |  |pl|  |pl
|  |  |rl|  |bl|  |kl|rl
| White, on move, sets a trap with 1.Rd1!
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |  |kd|  |  |  |  
|  |pd|pd|  |  |pd|pd|  
|  |bd|  |  |  |  |rd|  
|pd|pl|  |  |pd|  |  |  
|pl|  |  |  |pl|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |nl|bd
|  |  |  |  |  |pl|  |pl
|  |  |  |qd|bl|  |kl|rl
| Position after 3...Qxd1, stalemate
}}
|}

In [[Alexey Troitsky|Troitsky]]–{{Clarify |text=Vogt |post-text=: full name |reason=Vogt's first name doesn't seem to exist online; a possibile match is the 1848 ''Letters on Chess from C.F. Vogt'' by W. Lewis (books.google.com/books?id=VBYLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=Vogt+chess+1896&source=bl&ots=GuQZ2T_yD-&sig=lkaZAp8nPr5xZ_FX-Rb6kSKgtqw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC2NeWy7zQAhVGHGMKHSdHC9wQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=Vogt&f=false), if someone wants to do some old-fashioned library digging.|date=November 2016}}, 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 [[Pin (chess)|pinned]] and unable to move.<ref name="okeefe1973">{{cite news
 |title=Stalemate!
 |last=O’Keefe
 |first=Jack
 |work=Michigan Chess
 |date=August–September 1973
 |pages=4–6
 |via=[[Michigan Chess Association]] Webzine July 1999
 |url=http://www.michess.org/webzine_199907/okeefe.shtml <!-- orig. accessdate=2008-08-31 -->
 |url-status=dead
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120502111907/http://www.michess.org/webzine_199907/okeefe.shtml
 |archive-date=2012-05-02
 |access-date=2016-11-22
}}</ref>
{{Clear}}

==In studies==
{| align="right"
|-valign="top"
|+ Rhine, 2006
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |kl|  |  |  |  |ql
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |qd|kd|bd|  |  |bd|  
|  |  |nd|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |pd|  |  |  |  |rl
|  |  |  |nl|nl|  |  |  
|  |nd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |rl|  |  |  |  |  |
| White to play and draw
}}
|
{{chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |  |kl|bd|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |nd|  |kd|  |  |  |  
|  |  |nd|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Incredibly, the possibility of stalemate allows White, three pieces down, to draw.
}}
|}

Stalemate is a frequent theme in [[endgame study|endgame studies]]<ref>{{harvcolnb|Hooper|Whyld|1992|p=388}}</ref> and other [[chess composition]]s. An example is the "White to Play and Draw" study at right, composed by the [[United States|American]] [[chess master|master]] Frederick Rhine<ref>[http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10347483 United States Chess Federation rating card for Frederick S. Rhine]</ref> and published in 2006.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Benko|2006|p=49}}</ref> 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 (best; 3...Qb8+ 4.Kd7 Qxh8 5.Rxb3+ forces [[checkmate]]) 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.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Fine|Benko|2003|p=524}}</ref><ref>{{harvcolnb|Müller|Lamprecht|2001|p=403}}</ref><ref>{{harvcolnb|Staunton|1847|p=439}}</ref><ref>This can be confirmed, as to this position, by the [http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html Shredder Six-Piece Database].</ref> '''7. Kd8!''' (rightmost diagram) Black is three pieces ahead, but if White is allowed to take the bishop, the [[checkmate#Two knights|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 and knight checkmate#A stalemate trap|bishop, knight, and king versus lone king]].
{{Clear}}
{| align="right"
|-valign="top"
|+ Roycroft, 1957
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |  |  |rd|qd|rd|nd
|  |pd|  |  |pd|pd|bd|kl
|  |pd|pl|pd|  |pd|pd|nd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|bd|pd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |kd|  |  |  |  |  |
| White to play and draw
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |  |  |rd|qd|rd|nd
|  |pd|  |  |pd|pd|bd|kl
|  |pd|  |pd|  |pd|  |nd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |pd|  
|  |  |bd|  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |pd|rl|kd|  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Final position
}}
|}

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:
*'''1... f5 2. c8=Q''' (if 2.c8=R? then 2...Bc3 3.Rxc3 Qg7#) '''2... Bc3 3. Qxf5+''' draws by stalemate.
*'''1... g5''' (1...Ka1 2.c8=R transposes) '''2. c8=R{{chesspunc|!!}}''' (2.c8=Q? Ka1 3.Qc2 [or 3.Qc1+] b1=Q+ wins) '''2... Ka1''' (2...Ng6 3.Rc1+ forces Black to capture, stalemating White) '''3. Rc2!!''' (not 3.Rc1+?? b1=Q+! 4.Rxb1+ Bxb1#; now White threatens 4.Rxb2 and 5.Rxa2+, forcing stalemate or perpetual check) '''3... Bc4''' (trying to get in a check; 3...b1=Q, 3...b1=B, and 3...Bb1 are all stalemate; 3...Ng6 4.Rc1+!) '''4. Rc1+ Ka2 5. Ra1+ Kb3 6. Ra3+ Kc2 7. Rc3+ Kd2 8. Rc2+''' (rightmost diagram). As in Evans–Reshevsky, Black cannot escape the "eternal rook".<ref>{{harvcolnb|Roycroft|1972|p=294}}</ref>
{{Clear}}

==In problems==
{| align="right"
|-valign="top"
|+ Sam Loyd
|
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|
|  |  |  |  |  |bd|nd|rd
|  |  |  |  |pd|  |pd|qd
|  |  |  |  |ql|pd|kd|rd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |pd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |pl
|  |  |  |  |pl|  |  |  
|pl|pl|pl|pl|  |pl|pl|  
|rl|nl|bl|  |kl|bl|nl|rl
|Shortest stalemate
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
| 
|rd|nd|  |  |kd|  |nd|rd
|pd|pd|  |  |  |  |pd|pd
|  |  |  |pd|  |  |  |  
|qd|  |pd|pl|  |  |  |  
|pl|  |pl|  |  |pd|  |bd
|  |bd|  |  |pd|pl|rl|pl
|  |pl|  |nl|pl|  |pl|ql
|  |  |bl|  |kl|bl|nl|rl
|Stalemate with all pieces on board
}}
|}

Some [[chess problem]]s require "White to move and stalemate Black in ''n'' moves" (rather than the more common "White to move and checkmate 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 (first diagram). 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 (Frederick Rhine).

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 (second diagram). Games such as this are occasionally played in tournaments as a pre-arranged draw.<ref>[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1281617 Hohmeister vs. Frank 1993]</ref>
{{Clear}}

===Double stalemate===
{| align="right"
|-valign="top"
|+  
|
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|
|nl|bl|kd|  |  |  |  |  
|pl|pd|pl|  |pd|  |  |  
|  |pl|  |  |pl|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |pd|  |pd|  |  
|  |  |  |pl|pd|pl|pd|pd
|  |  |  |  |kl|bd|rd|qd
|Double stalemate position
}}
|
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |pd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|bd|pd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|rd|pd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|qd|pd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|kd|pd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |pd|  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |kl|  |  |  |  |  |  
|Another double stalemate
}}
|}
There are [[chess composition]]s featuring double stalemate. To the right are two double stalemate positions, in which neither side has a legal move. An example from actual play is given below:<ref name=winterstalemate>Edward Winter, [https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/stalemate.html Stalemate]</ref>
{{Clear}}
{{Chess diagram  
|tleft
|
|  |  |  |  |  |  |kd|  
|pd|  |pd|  |pd|pd|pl|  
|  |  |  |  |  |bd|  |kl
|  |  |  |nl|  |pl|  |pl
|  |  |  |  |  |  |nl|qd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|pl|  |pl|  |  |  |  | 
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|[[Friedrich Amelung]] – [[Gregor von Helmersen]], [[Viljandi]], July 1860<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=nA8WxVHexKgC&q=307 ''Baltische Schachblätter'', Volume 4], p. 307</ref>
}}
White played '''1. Ngxf6+ Qxf6+''' (if 1...exf6 then 2.Ne7#) '''2. Nxf6+ exf6 3. c4 c5 4. a4 a5''', leaving a double stalemate position. 1.Ndxf6+ would not have worked, for then 1...exf6 is possible.<ref name=winterstalemate/> (Under the present rules, the game would have ended after 1...Qxf6+, as the position is then dead: no sequence of legal moves leads to either side being checkmated.)
{{clearleft}}

{{Chess diagram  
|tleft
|
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |pd|  |  |pd|  |pd
|  |  |pl|  |  |pl|  |kd
|  |  |  |  |pd|pl|  |pl
|  |  |  |  |pl|  |kl|pl
|  |  |  |  |  |bl|nl|rl
|Fastest known double stalemate: after 18...dxe3
}}
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.<ref>The previous record (37 ply, i.e. 18.5 moves) was held by the German composer Eduard Schildberg, and was published in the ''Deutsches Wochenschach'' in 1915.
{{cite web
 |author=Antonio Garofalo
 |year=2007
 |title=Best Problems
 |url=http://web.tiscali.it/best_problems/BPPDF/BP044.pdf
 |pages=23 (numbered "95" at bottom of page)
 |access-date=2008-09-01
}}</ref>
{{Clear}}

==History of the stalemate rule==<!-- This section is linked from [[Chess]] -->
The stalemate rule has had a convoluted history.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|p=61}}</ref> Although stalemate is universally recognized as a draw today, that was not the case for much of the game's history. In the forerunners to modern chess, such as [[chaturanga]], delivering stalemate resulted in a loss.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|pp=229,267}}</ref> This was changed in [[shatranj]], however, where stalemating was a win. This practice persisted in chess as played in early 15th-century Spain.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|p=781}}</ref> [[Luis Ramírez de Lucena|Lucena]] (c. 1497), however, treated stalemate as an inferior form of victory;<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|p=461}}</ref> it won only half the stake in games played for money, and this continued to be the case in Spain as late as 1600.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|p=833}}</ref> From about 1600 to 1800, the rule in England was that stalemate was a {{em|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.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|pp=60–61,466}}</ref> That rule disappeared in England before 1820, being replaced by the French and Italian rule that a stalemate was a drawn game.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|p=391}}</ref>

Throughout history, a stalemate has at various times been:
*{{em|A win for the stalemating player}} in 10th century [[Arabia]]<ref>{{harvcolnb|Davidson|1981|p=65}}</ref> and parts of medieval Europe.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|pp=463–64, 781}}</ref><ref>{{harvcolnb|McCrary|2004|p=26}}</ref>
*{{em|A half-win for the stalemating player.}} In a game played for stakes, the stalemating player would win half the stake (18th century Spain).<ref>{{harvcolnb|Davidson|1981|p=65}}</ref>
*{{em|A win for the stalemated player}} in 9th century India,<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|pp=56–57,60–61}}</ref> 17th century Russia,<ref>{{harvcolnb|Davidson|1981|p=65}}</ref> on the Central Plain of Europe in the 17th century,<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|pp=388–89}}</ref> and 17th–18th century England.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|pp=60–61,466}}</ref><ref>Saul's ''Famous game of Chesse-play'' (London 1614) explained the reason for this rule as follows: "He that hath put his adversary's King into a stale, loseth the game, because he hath disturbed the course of the game, which can only end with the grand Check-mate." Murray, p. 466 & n. 32. McCrary, p. 26. Murray derides the rule as "illogical", Murray, p. 61, and Saul's explanation as "puerile", ''id.'', p. 466.</ref> This rule continued to be published in ''[[Edmond Hoyle|Hoyle's]] Games Improved'' as late as 1866.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Sunnucks|1970|p=438}}</ref><ref>Murray wrote in 1913, "The rule still appeared in editions after 1857, and I have met with players who argued that the rule was so." Murray, p. 391 n. 47.</ref>
*{{em|Illegal}}. If White made a move that would stalemate Black, he had to retract it and make a different move (Eastern Asia until the early 20th century). Murray likewise wrote that in Hindustani chess and Parsi chess, two of the three principal forms of chess played in India as of 1913,<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|p=78}}</ref> a player was not allowed to play a move that would stalemate the opponent.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|pp=82,84}}</ref> The same was true of Burmese chess, another chess variant, at the time of writing.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|p=113}}</ref> Stalemate was not permitted in most of the Eastern Asiatic forms of the game (specifically in Burma, India, Japan, and Siam) until early in the 20th century.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Davidson|1981|p=65}}</ref>
*{{em|The forfeiture of the stalemated player's turn to move}} (medieval France),<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|pp=464–66}}</ref><ref>{{harvcolnb|Davidson|1981|pp=64–65}}</ref> although other medieval French sources treat stalemate as a draw.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|pp=464–66}}</ref>
*{{em|A draw}}. This was the rule in 13th-century Italy<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|pp=461–62}}</ref> and also stated in the German ''[[Cracow Poem]]'' (1422), that noted, however, that some players treated stalemate as equivalent to [[checkmate]].<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|pp=463–64}}</ref> This rule was ultimately adopted throughout Europe, but not in England until the 19th century, after being introduced there by [[Jacob Sarratt]].<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|p=391}}</ref><ref>{{harvcolnb|Davidson|1981|pp=64–66}}</ref><ref>{{harvcolnb|Sunnucks|1970|p=438}}</ref>

==Proposed rule change==
Periodically, writers have argued that stalemate should again be made a win for the side causing the stalemate, on the grounds that the goal of chess is conceptually to capture the king and checkmate merely ends it when this is inevitable.<ref name=lock/> [[Grandmaster (chess)|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".<ref>{{harvcolnb|Kaufman|2009}}</ref> The British master [[Theodore Tylor|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".<ref>{{harvcolnb|Reinfeld|1959|pp=242–44}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{harvcolnb|Reinfeld|1959|p=242}}</ref> [[Larry Evans (chess grandmaster)|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".<ref>{{harvcolnb|Evans|2007|p=234}}</ref> This rule change would cause a greater emphasis on {{chessgloss|material}}; an extra pawn would be a greater advantage than it is today.

{{Chess diagram small
| tright
|
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |pd|nl|pd|pd 
|  |  |  |  |kl|bd|rd|kd
| Checklock: a victory under the present rules, but not if the goal were changed to capturing the king.<ref name=lock/>
}}
However, Kaufman tested the idea of scoring stalemates higher than draws with the chess engine [[Komodo (chess)|Komodo]], and found that the impact is quite small because it is rare to be able to force stalemate but not checkmate: while all [[king and pawn versus king]] endgames become wins when the pawn is protected (except when the attacking king is trapped in front of its own rook pawn), this does not turn out to be common enough. The problem is that king and lone minor piece against king cannot force stalemate in general.  [[Emanuel Lasker]] and [[Richard Réti]] proposed that both stalemate ''and'' king and minor versus king (with the minor piece side to move) should give ¾ points to the superior side: this would effectively restore not only the old stalemate rule but also the old [[bare king]] rule. Kaufman and correspondence grandmaster [[Arno Nickel]] have proposed going even further, and giving only ¼ point as well to the side that brings about a [[threefold repetition]] (which likewise has precedents in xiangqi, shogi, and [[Go (game)|Go]]). According to his tests with Komodo, chess at the level of a human World Championship match would have a draw rate of 65.6%; scoring stalemate as ¾–¼ reduces the draw rate to 63.4%; scoring stalemate ''and'' bare king as ¾–¼ brings it to 55.9%; and scoring stalemate, bare king, ''and'' threefold repetition as ¾–¼ brings it all the way down to 22.6%. (The same reduction of draws would occur if stalemate, bare king, and threefold repetition were scored as 1–0 instead of ¾–¼, but the point of the ¾–¼ scoring is to allow the weaker side to still benefit from avoiding checkmate, while giving the stronger side something to play for even when checkmate cannot be attained.)<ref name=Kaufman2021>Larry Kaufman. ''Chess Board Options: A Memoir of Players, Games and Engines''. Chapter 31</ref>

Jelliss has suggested that under the logic that stalemate should be a win (since any move would get the king taken), checklock should be a draw. (In a checklock position, no forward play is possible even if exposing the king to check is valid, so the king cannot get captured. The same logic would apply to deadlock.)<ref name=lock/>
{{Clear}}

===Effect on endgame theory===
If stalemate were a loss for the player unable to move, the outcome of some [[chess endgame|endgames]] would be affected.<ref name="okeefe1973"/> 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 (under the current rule): 

{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|
|rd|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|kd|  |kl|pl
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|Black to play
}}
*The endgame of [[king and pawn versus king endgame|king and pawn versus king]] would always be a win when the pawn can be protected (except in the singular case of a king trapped in front of its own rook pawn, which is diagram 1 below). In all other cases, either the pawn can be promoted or the defending king can be forced into a stalemate {{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=8–10}} (see diagram 2 below).
**An unusual position is given to the right; it is a draw under orthodox rules, but if stalemate is deemed to be a win, then Black to play wins by 1...Rh8! (Taking the rook gets White stalemated after 2.Kxh8 Kf7 or 2...Kf8, and if White refuses the sacrifice, Black can force White to abandon the pawn with 2.Kg6 Kf8 3.Kh6 Kf7 or 2.Kh6 Kf7, leaving a basic checkmate.)<ref>{{cite book
 |last=Pritchard 
 |first=D. B. 
 |author-link=David Pritchard (chess player)
 |editor-last=Beasley
 |editor-first=John
 |title=The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants
 |publisher=John Beasley 
 |chapter=§10.1 Capturing or baring the king
 |page=81
 |year=2007
 |isbn=978-0-9555168-0-1}}</ref>
*Two [[knight (chess)|knights]] and a [[king (chess)|king]] can force stalemate against a lone king {{harvcol|Hooper|Whyld|1992|p=32}} (See [[Two knights endgame]]).
*A {{chessgloss|rook pawn}} plus a [[bishop (chess)|bishop]] on the color opposite the pawn's queening square would be a win instead of a draw, because the defending king can be forced into stalemate {{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|p=133}} (see diagram 3 below). (See [[Wrong rook pawn]]).
*A king and [[rook (chess)|rook]] versus a king and bishop would be a win for the side with the rook because the superior side can force stalemate {{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=459–60}} (see diagram 4 below). (The same is not true for a rook versus knight.)
*If the defending king is cornered, a single bishop or knight may be able to stalemate the king, although these cannot be forced in general.<ref name="okeefe1973"/>
*The defensive drawing techniques with a {{chessgloss|bishop pawn}} or {{chessgloss|rook pawn}} on the seventh {{chessgloss|rank}} with its king nearby versus a [[queen (chess)|queen]] would not work, because they rely on stalemate {{Harvcol|Fine|Benko|2003|pp=527–28}}. (See [[Queen versus pawn endgame]].)
*Positions such as the [[Saavedra position]], which would normally require an underpromotion due to the fact that a queen would stalemate the opponent, no longer require an underpromotion. (In fact, underpromotion to rook or bishop would no longer be necessary in chess.)
{{Chess diagram small
|tleft
|Diagram 1
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|kd|__|kl
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|pl
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|White to move, draw even with a change in stalemate rule
}}
{{Chess diagram small
|tleft
|Diagram 2
|__|__|kd|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|pl|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|kl|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|Black to move, stalemate
}}
{{Chess diagram small
|tleft
|Diagram 3
|kd|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|pl|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|kl|__|bl|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|Black to move, stalemate
}}
{{Chess diagram small
|tleft
|Diagram 4
|__|__|__|rl|__|__|bd|kd
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|kl|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__
|Black to move, stalemate
}}
{{Clear}}

The effect if stalemates were to be scored as ¾–¼ would be similar but less severe, as then the weaker side would still be rewarded somewhat for avoiding checkmate via stalemate, just not as much as before.<ref name=Kaufman2021/>

==Rules in other chess variants==
Not all [[chess variant|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.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Murray|1913|pp=229,267}}</ref><ref>[http://www.ludoteka.com/chaturanga-en.html Chaturangs – Game rules]</ref> 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.<ref>[http://history.chess.free.fr/shatranj.htm Shatranj]</ref> This game was in turn introduced to the [[Western world]], where it would eventually evolve to modern-day Western [[chess]], although the stalemate rule for Western chess was not standardized as a draw until the 19th century (see [[#History of the stalemate rule|history of the rule]]).

===Modern Asian variants===
Chaturanga also evolved into several other games in various regions of [[Asia]], all of which have varying rules on stalemating:
* In [[makruk]] (Thai chess), a stalemate results in a draw, like in Western chess.<ref>[https://www.chessvariants.com/oriental.dir/thai.html Makruk: Thai chess]</ref>
* In [[shogi]] (Japanese chess) and the majority of its [[Shogi variant|variants]], a stalemate is a win for the player delivering the stalemate.<ref>[https://www.shogi.cz/en/rules Rules – Japanese Game Shogi]</ref> However, in shogi (and in any variant of the game that features [[Shogi#Drops|drops]]), stalemates are extremely rare due to the fact that no piece ever goes entirely out of play.
* In [[xiangqi]] (Chinese chess) it results in an immediate loss for the stalemated player (like in shogi), and there is no explicit distinction between it and checkmate.<ref>[https://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=68 BrainKing – Game rules (Chinese Chess)]</ref> 
* In [[janggi]] (Korean chess), uniquely among modern chess variants, players are allowed to pass their turn at any time. Consequently, there are no stalemates, only positions in which the only legal move is to pass.<ref>[https://www.chessvariants.com/oriental.dir/koreanchess.html Janggi – Korean Chess]</ref> (In fact, Korean chess does not even have draws, and is the only competitively played version of chess where that is the case: under the official South Korean tournament rules, in positions that would otherwise be draws, points are tallied up for the pieces and pawns remaining on the board, with the player moving second being given 1.5 points to compensate for the first-move advantage. Since every piece and pawn is given an integer number of points, the result can never be a draw.)<ref>{{cite book | author=Kaufman, Larry | title=Chess Board Options | publisher=New in Chess | year=2021 | isbn=978-9-056-91933-7 |page=104}}</ref>
* In [[sittuyin]] (Myanmar/Burmese chess), stalemates are avoided altogether, as delivering them is illegal. Players are not allowed to leave the opponent with no legal moves without putting the king into check.<ref>[http://ancientchess.com/page/play-sittuyin.htm How to Play Sittuyin – Burmese Chess – Myanmar Chess]</ref>
* In [[shatar]] (Mongolian chess), stalemate is a loss for the stalemated player, like in xiangqi and shogi. [[Jean-Louis Cazaux]] and [[Rick Knowlton]] explain it as follows: "the loss of liberty is considered equal to death by the Mongolian nomadic culture".<ref name="C&K">Cazaux, Jean-Louis and Knowlton, Rick (2017). ''A World of Chess'', p. 43. McFarland. {{ISBN|9780786494279}}.</ref>

===Western chess variants===
The majority of [[List of chess variants|variants of Western chess]] do not specify any alterations to the rule of stalemate. There are some variants, however, where the rule {{em|is}} specified to differ from that of standard chess:
* In [[losing chess]], the stalemate rule varies depending on the version being played.<ref>{{harvcolnb|Alexander|1973|p=107}}</ref> According to the "international" rules, a stalemate is simply a win for the stalemated player. The [[Free Internet Chess Server]], however, grants a win to the player with fewer pieces remaining on the board (regardless of who delivered the stalemate); if both players have the same number of pieces it is a draw.<ref>[https://www.chessvariants.com/diffobjective.dir/giveaway.html Losing Chess]</ref> There is also a "joint" FICS/international rule, according to which a stalemate is only a win if both sources agree that it is a win (i.e. it counts as a win for the stalemated player if that player also happens to have fewer pieces remaining); in all other cases it is a draw.
* In [[Hexagonal chess#Gliński's hexagonal chess|Gliński's hexagonal chess]], stalemate is neither a draw nor a full win. Instead, in tournament games, the player who delivers the stalemate earns ¾ point, while the stalemated player receives ¼ point.<ref>[https://www.chessvariants.com/hexagonal.dir/hexagonal.html Gliński's Hexagonal Chess]</ref> It is unknown whether a stalemate should be considered a draw or a win in a {{chessgloss|friendly game}}.

==See also==
*[[Checkmate]]
*[[Desperado (chess)|Desperado]]
*[[Draw (chess)]]
*[[Glossary of chess]]
*[[Rules of chess]]
*[[Swindle (chess)]]

==Notes==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==References==
{{Refbegin|30em}}
*{{Citation
|last=Alexander
|first=C.H.O'D.
|author-link=Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander
|year=1973 <!-- reprint - NEED ORIGINAL YEAR! -->
|title=A Book of Chess
|publisher=Harper & Row
|publication-place=New York
|isbn=978-0-0601-0048-3
|url-access=registration
|url=https://archive.org/details/bookofchess0000alex
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Averbakh |first= Yuri |author-link= Yuri Averbakh
|date=1996-08-01
|title=Chess Middlegames: Essential Knowledge
|publisher=[[Cadogan Chess]] <!-- |series=Everyman Chess -->
|isbn= 978-1-8574-4125-3
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Benko|first=Pal |author-link=Pal Benko
|date=May 2006
|title=Benko's Bafflers
|journal=[[Chess Life]]
|issue=May
|page=49
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Benko|first=Pal |author-link=<!-- Pal Benko -->
|date=January 2008
|title=The 2007 World Championship
|journal=Chess Life
|issue=January
|pages=48–49
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Davidson|first=Henry A. |author-link=Henry A. Davidson
|year=1949 <!-- All later years are 1st-ed reprints -->
|title=A Short History of Chess
|publisher=Greenberg
|isbn= 978-0-307-82829-3
|lccn=68-22441
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-8FRAQAAMAAJ
|access-date=2016-11-22
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Evans|first=Larry |author-link=Larry Evans (chess grandmaster)
|date=1970-08-20
|title=Chess Catechism
|publisher=[[Simon & Schuster]]
|isbn= 978-0-6712-0491-4
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Evans|first=Larry |author-link=Larry Evans (chess grandmaster)
|date=2009-11-06 <!-- there is also a 2007 edition (978-1580422185) that is about half the length, content, and notability -->
|title=This Crazy World of Chess
|publisher=[[Cardoza Publishing]]
|isbn=978-1580422185
}}
*{{Citation
|last1=Fine|first1=Reuben |author-link1=Reuben Fine
|last2=Benko|first2=Pal |author-link2=<!-- Pal Benko -->
|year=2003
|orig-year=1941
|title=[[Basic Chess Endings]]
|publisher=David McKay
|isbn= 0-8129-3493-8
}}
*{{Citation
|last1=Fox|first1=Mike 
|last2=James|first2=Richard 
|year=1993
|title=The Even More Complete Chess Addict
|publisher=[[Faber & Faber]]
|location=London
|edition=2
|isbn=978-0-5711-7040-1
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Golombek|first=Harry |author-link=Harry Golombek
|year=1977
|title=Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess
|publisher=Crown Publishers
|isbn= 0-517-53146-1
}}
*{{citation
 |last=Griffiths |first=Peter <!-- |author-link= Peter Griffiths not this person! -->
 |title= Exploring the Endgame
 |publisher= American Chess Promotions
 |year= 1992
 |isbn= 0-939298-83-X
}}
*{{citation
 |last1=Hooper |first1=David |author-link1=David Vincent Hooper
 |last2=Whyld |first2=Kenneth |author-link2=Kenneth Whyld
 |title=[[The Oxford Companion to Chess]]
 |year=1992
 |edition=2
 |contribution= stalemate
 |publisher=Oxford University Press
 |isbn=0-19-280049-3
}}
*{{Citation
 |last1=Károlyi|first1=Tibor |author-link1=Tibor Károlyi (chess player)
 |last2=Aplin|first2=Nick|author-link2=Nick Aplin
 |title=Endgame Virtuoso Anatoly Karpov
 |year=2007
 |publisher=[[New In Chess]]
 |isbn= 978-90-5691-202-4
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Kaufman|first=Larry |author-link1=Larry Kaufman
|year=2009
|title=Middlegame Zugzwang and a Previously Unknown Bobby Fischer Game
|journal=Chess Life
|issue=September
|page=35
}}
*{{Citation
|last=McCrary|first=John
|year=2004
|title=The Evolution of Special Draw Rules
|journal=Chess Life
|issue=November
|pages=26–27
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Minev|first=Nikolay |author-link=Nikolay Minev
|year=2004
|title=A Practical Guide to Rook Endgames
|publisher=Russell Enterprises
|isbn=1-888690-22-4}}
*{{Citation
|last1=Müller|first1=Karsten |author-link1=Karsten Müller
|last2=Lamprecht|first2=Frank|author-link2=Frank Lamprecht
|year=2001
|title=Fundamental Chess Endings
|publisher=Gambit Publications
|isbn=1-901983-53-6
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Murray|first=H. J. R. |author-link=H. J. R. Murray
|year=1913
|title=A History of Chess
|publisher=Oxford University Press
|isbn= 0-19-827403-3
}}
*{{citation
|last=Nunn|first=John |author-link=John Nunn
|year=2009
|title=Understanding Chess Endgames
|publisher=[[Gambit Publications]]
|isbn= 978-1-906454-11-1
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Pachman|first=Ludek |author-link=Ludek Pachman
|year=1973
|title=Attack and Defense in Modern Chess Tactics
|publisher=David McKay
}}
*{{citation
 |last1=Polgar
 |first1=Susan
 |author-link1=Susan Polgar
 |last2=Truong
 |first2=Paul
 |author-link2=Paul Truong
 |year=2005
 |title=A World Champion's Guide to Chess
 |publisher=[[Random House]]
 |isbn=978-0-8129-3653-7
 |url=https://archive.org/details/worldchampionsgu00susa_0
 }}
*{{Citation
|editor-last=Reinfeld|editor-first=Fred |editor-link=Fred Reinfeld
|year=1959
|title=The Treasury of Chess Lore
|publisher=[[Dover Publications|Dover]] <!-- other reprinters: Arco (1955) -->
|publication-place=New York
|orig-year=First published in 1951 by [[David McKay Company|David McKay]]
|isbn=978-0-4862-0458-1
|ol=16542177M
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Roycroft |first=A.J. |author-link=A.J. Roycroft
|year=1972
|title=Test Tube Chess
|publisher=Stackpole Books
|isbn=0-8117-1734-8
}}
*{{Citation
|last=Soltis
|first=Andy
|author-link=Andrew Soltis
|year=1978
|title=Chess to Enjoy
|publisher=Stein and Day
|isbn=978-0-8128-2331-8
|url=https://archive.org/details/chesstoenjoy00solt
}}
*{{Citation 
|last=Staunton|first=Howard |author-link=Howard Staunton
|year=1847 <!-- 1848 ed. cover viewable as of 2016-11-22 at [biblio.com/book/chess-players-handbook-staunton-esq-howard/d/866251501] -->
|title=The Chess-Player's Handbook
|publisher=[[Henry G. Bohn]]
|publication-place=London
|isbn=978-1-3434-0465-6 <!-- 2015 (most recent printing) in lieu of 1847 id -->
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=q7BAAAAAcAAJ
|access-date=2016-11-22
}}
*{{citation
|last=Sunnucks|first=Anne|author-link=Anne Sunnucks <!-- credited also as "compiler" -->
|year=1976
|edition=2 <!-- revised -->
|orig-year=First published 1970-04-29 <!-- isbn 978-0709110309 -->
|title=The Encyclopaedia of Chess <!-- "ae" are as separate letters in original title text -->
|publisher=[[Robert Hale Publishing|Robert Hale Ltd]] <!-- St. Martin's Press sub-listed -->
|publication-place=London
|isbn=978-0-7091-4697-1
}}
{{Refend}}

==External links==
{{Wiktionary}}
*[[Edward Winter (chess historian)|Edward Winter]], [http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/stalemate.html Stalemate]
*[https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/selfblockade.html "Chess: Stalemate by Self-Blockade" by Edward Winter]
*Edward Winter, [http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter53.html#5928._An_unusual_chess_picture_C.N. 5929. Stalemate]
*[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1008242 "Stalemate!" Game Collection] at [[chessgames.com]]
*[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072886 Spassky vs. Keres, 1961, ended in stalemate]
*[http://chicagochess.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-defensive-brilliancy.html A Defensive Brilliancy]
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fiscal-cliff-talks-at-a-stalemate-over-tax-hikes/2012/12/02/1c31b98a-3cc6-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html Example of "stalemate" in politics]

{{chess}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Chess terminology]]
[[Category:Rules of chess]]