Current Events > In chess, why is cornering an opponent so they can't move considered a stalemate

(+) Yeah! (+)

Instead of a win for the person who trapped them?

---

Because it was a failure in tactics. If you're getting demolished you can work towards the goal of getting a stalement.

---

I've never understood this rule, either. If i was inventing Chess, I would be like "yeah, this counts as a win too because obviously you've got the King corned. If the King can't move, then it should the other player's turn again anyway."

But instead, the actual inventor of Chess was all like "Let's make this really stupid rule called 'Stalemate' for no reason because I'm stupid".

WizardPowers posted...

Instead of a win for the person who trapped them?

Because its impossible for them to keep moving which means that you can't have any turns yourself, so nobody can win

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Because it was a failure in tactics. If you're getting demolished you can work towards the goal of getting a stalement.

Why do they consider it a failure in tactics instead of successfully trapping your opponent's pieces

---

YellowMustard69 posted...

I've never understood this rule, either. If i was inventing Chess, I would be like "yeah, this counts as a win too because obviously you've got the King corned. If the King can't move, then it should the other player's turn again anyway."

But instead, the actual inventor of Chess was all like "Let's make this really stupid rule called 'Stalemate' for no reason because I'm stupid".

on the other hand, your goal is to kill the king, and you cant do that.

sounds like a failure to me

---

WizardPowers posted...

Why do they consider it a failure in tactics instead of successfully trapping your opponent's pieces

The goal isn't to trap their pieces. It's just to trap the king

---

Feline_Heart posted...

Because its impossible for them to keep moving which means that you can't have any turns yourself, so nobody can win

At the very least, if any move puts your King in check, then you should have to forfeit your turn and let the other play move a piece again.

Feline_Heart posted...

Because its impossible for them to keep moving which means that you can't have any turns yourself, so nobody can win

I'm asking why it doesn't count as a win for the person who trapped the other.

---

AlisLandale posted...

on the other hand, your goal is to kill the king, and you cant do that.

sounds like a failure to me

Not nearly as big of a failure as getting to the point where you can't move anything without putting your king in check.

WizardPowers posted...

I'm asking why it doesn't count as a win for the person who trapped the other.

And I told you why. Nobody can do anything. How is that a win?

---

Feline_Heart posted...

The goal isn't to trap their pieces. It's just to trap the king

Well the queen is trapped as well. She's trapped from moving without going into checkmate

---

WizardPowers posted...

Why do they consider it a failure in tactics instead of successfully trapping your opponent's pieces

They can trap their own pieces to force a stalemate

---

I like the stalemate because it gives me a chance to not lose if I'm down by a lot.

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

If you're getting demolished you can work towards the goal of getting a stalement.

What other games consider it a win to back yourself into a corner in which the only options are death?

---

YellowMustard69 posted...

Not nearly as big of a failure as getting to the point where you can't move anything without putting your king in check.

if your goal is to kill a man and you trap him inside his house, youre a shitty hit man ;)

---

Because there may be moves for them to put your king in check but leave theirs open. So basically in theory you kill their king the next turn but they kill you with their dying breath so you both die.
---

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

What other games consider it a win to back yourself into a corner in which the only options are death?

It's not a win, it's a draw

---

AlisLandale posted...

if your goal is to kill a man and you trap him inside his house, youre a shitty hit man ;)

Just because he can't move doesn't mean I can't move.

think about it this way. maybe help arrives. what then fuckers
---

it's a good question but it does add a layer of tactics to the end game. it's also hilarious when you can force it when you're losing.

thinking about it logically, though, in military battles or shootouts, one side can refuse to move and hold everything up for days. so that's kind of like a stalemate

looking at the history, it has been considered a loss, win, and draw at various points. some also skip the turn.

---

I'm facepalming so hard right now...

YellowMustard69 posted...

Just because he can't move doesn't mean I can't move.

but can you really?

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

It's not a win, it's a draw

Sorry, i actually meant not a loss

---

GiftedACIII posted...

Because there may be moves for them to put your king in check but leave theirs open. So basically in theory you kill their king the next turn but they kill you with their dying breath so you both die.

This is also a good point. I dunno the computer science behind this, but it may be that if you are not in check but can't move, the opponent would have to make themselves vulnerable to put you in check.

---

WizardPowers posted...

Why do they consider it a failure in tactics instead of successfully trapping your opponent's pieces

lets say that you need information from someone. Vital information.

youve tracked him but you didnt hide your approach or plan out anything. Now hes backed against a cliff and he jumps.

did you succeed? No, because the vital info is now gone for good, that man has successfully evaded capture and taken his secret to the grave.

This is what chess is about. Its a game of strategic moves, thinking ahead to outsmart your opponent.

TBH its a good rule.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

lets say that you need information from someone. Vital information.

youve tracked him but you didnt hide your approach or plan out anything. Now hes backed against a cliff and he jumps.

did you succeed? No, because the vital info is now gone for good, that man has successfully evaded capture and taken his secret to the grave.

This is what chess is about. Its a game of strategic moves, thinking ahead to outsmart your opponent.

TBH its a good rule.

Hmm

Wouldn't it be closer to say your goal was to kill the man and you put him in a position where he dies either way? Sounds like a win

---

you take the king alive in chess.
---

YellowMustard69 posted...

Just because he can't move doesn't mean I can't move.

Yeah it does. Hence Stalemate.

Stalemates are also mostly achieved through move repetition anyway, so in most games both of you can still move, it's just a fruitless endeavor.

---

Basically the king goes into hiding and you cant find them

---

Think it's a comeback mechanic to avoid lame duck situations

---

What do you guys think of XiangQi then?

---

The way I always imagined it, the king managed to escape while the rest of his forces held you off.

---

None of the answers ITT really mean anything. That's the rule because that's the rule. It's an ancient game.

I will argue stalemate is better for chess, though, because otherwise a smaller material advantage would be needed to win, in which case White's win rate would tower over Black's.

---

Yeah trying to come up with logical answers to this is fun, but it's probably as simple as: The rules of chess are that moving your king into danger is an illegal move, and a player cannot be forced to make an illegal move, hence, it is a draw.

---

The way I always imagined it, the king managed to escape while the rest of his forces held you off.

but the king is alone. hence my reinforcements idea; the king is in his castle, running laps while the big dumb invading barbars are like uuuurgh where did he go. being able to stall for time can get you out of things sometimes. it happens in my hero academia.
---

Is there a specific name for this kind of stalemate? I need to see an example.

DDirtyDastard posted...

Is there a specific name for this kind of stalemate? I need to see an example.

Specific kind? What do you mean

---

DDirtyDastard posted...

Is there a specific name for this kind of stalemate? I need to see an example.

What other stalemates do you think exist...

---

So you guys are literally wasting all this time talking about standard bullshit stalemates? I thought this was about some freak scenario that rarely happens.

DDirtyDastard posted...

Is there a specific name for this kind of stalemate? I need to see an example.

when you constantly put a king in check but when he moves hes not in check mate.

so, pretty much being perpetually in check status but never able to put him in check mate.

---

DDirtyDastard posted...

So you guys are literally wasting all this time talking about standard bullshit stalemates? I thought this was about some freak scenario that rarely happens.

Like what???

---

i am magnus carlsen bow before me plebs

---

Because in order to win you have to checkmate the enemy King, before the game runs out of legal moves.

If neither side is able to accomplish that, it's a stalemate, a draw.

Feline_Heart posted...

And I told you why. Nobody can do anything. How is that a win?

Correction, they can't do anything. You've made that happen. How isn't that a win?

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

youve tracked him but you didnt hide your approach or plan out anything. Now hes backed against a cliff and he jumps.

Not the same. In the chess situation, the king is basically with his back against a wall with no way out. Nothing he does will get him a win or an escape. This is a win for you.

---

Just to clarify a possibly relevant point: "stalemate" is a type of draw characterized by one side having no legal moves on their turn without being in check. There are other ways to draw in chess, including 3-fold repetition of position and the 50 move rule. These other draws are not considered "stalemate".

WizardPowers posted...

Hmm

Wouldn't it be closer to say your goal was to kill the man and you put him in a position where he dies either way? Sounds like a win

no, because the goal isnt always to kill someone. Sometimes the extraction part is more important.


---

tiornys posted...

Just to clarify a possibly relevant point: "stalemate" is a type of draw characterized by one side having no legal moves on their turn without being in check. There are other ways to draw in chess, including 3-fold repetition of position and the 50 move rule. These other draws are not considered "stalemate".

Interesting

So in like a legit chess tournament, what happens when there is a stalemate vs a draw?

---

WizardPowers posted...

Interesting

So in like a legit chess tournament, what happens when there is a stalemate vs a draw?

A stalemate is a draw. A draw is not necessarily a stalemate. Same principle as "nickle" and "coin".