I believe the one who put the opponent in a stalemate should be the winner. Because it is not different from a checkmate at all. In both ways the king is trapped and unable to make any legal move.
- I agree. The one who has given the stalemate should win. (state why)
- I disagree. It should be a draw. (state why)
- No opinion/results
Most Helpful Guy
Negative. Checkmate & stalemate are not the same, or even similar. If you're not superior enough to actually place your opponent in check, you don't get to claim victory. Stalemate is a failure of both players to neutralize their opponent's threat and failure to capitalize on their own threat. You don't "place an opponent in stalemate" any more than you place yourself in stalemate. In which case, by your ignorant argument, you've beaten yourself as much as you've beaten your opponent, so stalemate is therefore equivalent to concession. Grow up. Learn to play better chess, and stop arguing to change the rules so you can continue being lazy or ignorant.2
- Show AllShow Less
Most Helpful Girl
Stealing from another person, you don't put the king in any danger, why would the king ever move to put himself in danger? If you're not able to tactically put someone in a place where no matter what they do, they're in danger, then you didn't really outsmart them.
Stalemate also offers the losing person a chance at redemption, as once they get put on the losing side they may have been into a situation where the king is their only piece left. But because they can trigger a stalemate, it gives them an opportunity to not lose by seriously outsmarting the opponent.2