In chess, stalemate shouldn't be a draw. The one who put the opponent in stalemate should win. Agree?

For those who do not know: Stalemate is like checkmate. Checkmate is when the king is in check and it has no more possible moves to not be in check anymore. Stalemate is the same, except that the king is not in check, but it will be in check for any possible move, so this ends the game.
In chess, stalemate shouldn't be a draw. The one who put the opponent in stalemate should win. Agree?
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)
    Vote A
  • I disagree. It should be a draw. (state why)
    Vote B
  • No opinion/results
    Vote C
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
221

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.

    1|1
    1|1
    • I liked this at first, then you turnt into a little shit. No idea why you're so mean to her over thinking something, but perhaps you should grow up.

    • Show All
    • Y'all need to get a room or something!

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|0
    0|0

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Guys Said 20

  • If there are other legal moves that won't put the king in check, than it wouldn't be a win yet.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I believe that a stalemate should result in a remis.

    A remis should be the result whenever either player fails to claim victory. That's why one can force a remis by repeating the same position thrice, that's why one can get a remis by causing a stalemate. It means the opponent was not good enough to actually win.

    1|0
    0|0
  • No cuz the objectives of victory in Chess is not "Stalemate"
    Chess game starts with a "Stalemate" so if you achieve that later in the game, then its defeat cuz you achieved the same result by killing your soldiers and decreasing the strength of your army.
    "Remember the chess always starts with stalemate"

    1|0
    0|0
    • Stalemate is when there is no legal move left for the king cause every move is a check. How does chess even start with stalemate?

    • Show All
    • lol,"Chess is chess"

    • I know but it must be an interesting variation.

  • In the diagram above, I presume it is white's move. White has other legal moves, therefore it is NOT a stalemate. If it's black's move, advancing either pawn next to the Queen is indeed, checkmate. Besides, generally speaking, victory in chess is defined as capturing the opponent's King, not putting it in an endless, repeatable loop where it is not taken.

    1|0
    0|0
    • It is black's move.

    • Show All
    • Well, I guess then I am the one who didn't see that picture properly. It does look like there are possible moves! Thank you 👍

    • Glad to help :)

  • I like the way things are. If you are in a bad situation, it can take a decent amount of skill to force that to a draw rather than a loss (eg. If someone only has thier king left, they have a purpose to keep playing, otherwise its kind of pointless in most cases, and they may as well quit unless they are a masochist). It makes things more challenging for all players, which is a good thing... I'm not that great at chess but I do enjoy the challenge.

    1|1
    0|0
  • I think they shouldn't win, they're dead to rights. They can't make any moves that don't get them killed. That's basically check mate, guaranteed death. That being said it's not really a big deal as you can avoid stalemates pretty easy once you know that it's a thing.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Yeah, I am good at chess so, I was toying with a friend in an online game. I got 4-5 Queens and, I didn't knew about stalemate and, it ended in a draw. It was the worst feeling ever.

    1|0
    0|0
    • Awe! Five queens dayummm 🔥

    • Show All
    • Did you mean en passant?

    • Yeah, lol. Go fuck yourself pussy. And, I have beaten big mouths like you by giving them first 5 moves free.

  • No. Stalemate is not the same as check mate, because the king is not in check. Yes he's stuck, but not in harm's way.

    2|0
    0|0
  • No. The victory condition is to get the king in a position where it is threatened and cannot escape, not simply to prevent it moving.

    1|0
    0|0
  • A stalemate in chess is in fact a loss for both parties. Since the game is a war game, and if in a real war both sides are that gutted then a third party is bound to strike both down.

    0|2
    0|0
    • I get it. But it feels so unfair 😭

    • Show All
    • Same it's not like riding a bike lol you do forget. I should see if there are any good apps out there for it.

    • Thanks. But I am not willing to try it out now. Maybe later. I need a board as well.

  • Sorry I don't agree. It is possible to get into a stalemate by accident and can be a way of avoiding a checkmate.

    1|0
    0|0
  • It is a draw because you lacked sufficient skill to actually fulfill the victory conditions. You could only bring everything to a halt. It reflects the reality of conflict.

    1|0
    0|0
  • At the point you are at the draw you are unable to remove that piece from the board and neither piece can make a killing blow.

    1|0
    0|0
  • The object of the game is checkmate. If it's not check, it can't be checkmate. That's why you need to be careful even when you appear to be winning.

    1|0
    0|0
  • No you can never win neither can your opponent it's completely different.

    1|0
    0|0
  • No you have to know whether its going to be a stalemate. That's the game dr

    1|0
    0|0
  • Agreed and it would be unfair to the player who used all the efforts to put opponent's king at the place where no move is valid.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I agree but it only works like that if you make your own house rules

    0|0
    0|0
  • Agreed

    1|0
    0|0
  • They should have to fight to the death...

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 1

  • I say agree because they should have to make their next move and be slaughtered.

    Chess is a game of war and a king can't say "well none of my moves are good so I'll just sit here and everything will be fine"

    But it could just be because I'm bad at endgame :P

    1|0
    0|0

Recommended myTakes

Loading...