|
|
|
|
Stalemate
|
| |
|
| |
Stalemate is a situation in chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check but has no legal moves. One of the rules of chess is that stalemate ends the game, with the result a draw. Often during the endgame, stalemate is a resource that enables the player with the inferior position to draw the game. In more complicated positions, stalemate is much rarer, usually taking the form of a swindle that succeeds only if the superior side is inattentive.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Stalemate' Start a new discussion about 'Stalemate' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
Stalemate is a situation in chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check but has no legal moves. One of the rules of chess is that stalemate ends the game, with the result a draw. Often during the endgame, stalemate is a resource that enables the player with the inferior position to draw the game. In more complicated 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 but, before that and depending on the location, it was sometimes deemed a win for the stalemating player, a half-win for that player, or even a loss for that player. In some times and places it either was not allowed or the stalemated player missed a turn.
Some regional chess variants have not allowed a player to play a stalemating move. In different versions of suicide chess, another chess variant, stalemate may or may not be treated as a draw.
The word "stalemate" is also used for a metaphor when a conflict has reached an impasse and resolution seems difficult or impossible, i.e. a no-win situation.
__FORCETOC__
Simple examples
With Black to move, Black is stalemated in diagrams 1 to 4. (Chess diagram convention has white playing up the board, black down.) Stalemate is an important factor in the endgame – the endgame set-up in diagram 2, for example, quite frequently is relevant in play (see King and pawn versus king endgame). The position in diagram 2 occurred in an 1898 game between Amos Burn and Harry Pillsbury and also in a 1925 game between Savielly Tartakower and Richard Réti.
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 (see Queen versus pawn endgame). 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. (White may be able to win the resulting queen versus queen ending, however, if the white king is close enough).
Stalemate 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 . Below are some examples of this from actual play.
Anand versus Kramnik
In this game between Viswanathan Anand and Vladimir Kramnik from the 2007 World Chess Championship, Black must capture the pawn on f5, causing stalemate . (Any other move by Black loses.)
Korchnoi versus Karpov
An intentional stalemate occurred on the 124th move of the fifth game of the 1978 World Championship match between Anatoly Karpov and Viktor Korchnoi. The game had been a theoretical draw for many moves , . (Even if White wins the black pawn, the black king can get to the a8 corner and set up a fortress. See fortress (chess)#Fortress in a corner and Wrong rook pawn#Korchnoi-Karpov.) However the players were not on speaking terms so neither would offer a draw by agreement. Korchnoi said that it gave him pleasure to stalemate Karpov and that it was slightly humiliating . (Incidentally, as of 2008 this is the longest game played in a World Chess Championship final match, and also the only World Championship game to end in stalemate .)
Bernstein versus Smyslov
Sometimes a surprise stalemate saves a game. In the game between Ossip Bernstein and 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 rook if it captures the pawn once it is on b2. Play went:
- 1... b2??
- 2. Rxb2!
Now if 2... Rh2+ 3. Kf3! Rxb2 is stalemate. Smyslov moved 2... Kg4 and the game was drawn after 3. Kf1 (see rook and pawn versus rook endgame) .
Matulovic 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 Matulovic-Nikolay Minev (at right). Play continued:
- 1. Rc6 Kg5
- 2. Kh3 Kh5
- 3. f4 (hoping for 3... Ra3+?, with a win for White)
- 3....Rxa6!
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 between Elijah Williams and Daniel Harrwitz (diagram at right), Black was up a knight and a pawn in an endgame. This would normally be a decisive 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 Ke3 (avoiding the threatened 73...Nc2+)
- 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 insufficient material to win after 80. ... Nxd3 81. Kxa2, or a standard fortress in a corner draw after 80. ... Kxd3)
- 80. Rc1+ Kb5
- 81. Rc7 Nd5
- 82. Rc2 Nc3
- 83. Rb2+ Kc4
- 84. Rb3! (diagram at right)
Now the players agreed to a draw, since 84...Kxb3 or 84...Rxb3 is stalemate, as is 84...Ra8 85.Rxc3+! Kxc3.
More complicated 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 a game by Larry Evans versus Reshevsky, which 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 rank and checks Black's king ad infinitum (i.e. perpetual check). Either a draw by agreement will occur or a draw by threefold repetition or the fifty-move rule can eventually be claimed .
- 47. h4! Re2+
- 48. Kh1 Qxg3?? (After 48...Qg6! 49.Rf8 Qe6! 50.Rh8+ Kg6, Black remains a piece ahead after 51.Qxe6 Nx6, or forces mate after 51.gxf4 Re1+ and 52...Qa2+.)
- 49. Qg8+! Kxg8
- 50. Rxg7+!
Gelfand versus Kramnik
The position at right occurred in Gelfand-Kramnik, FIDE Candidates match, game 6, Sanghi Nagar 1994. Kramnik (Black), down two pawns and on the defensive, would be very happy with a draw. Gelfand (White) 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 (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!? (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.
Troitzky versus Vogt
In Troitzky-Vogt, 1896, the famous endgame study composer pulled off an elegant swindle in actual play. After Troitzky'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 pinned and unable to move.
Stalemate in studies
| | | |kl|bd| | | |=
| | | | | | | | |=
| |nd| |kd| | | | |=
| | |nd| | | | | |=
| | | | | | | | |=
| | | | | | | | |=
| | | | | | | | |=
| | | | | | | | |= | Incredibly, the possibility of stalemate allows White, three pieces down, to draw. |
}
|}
Stalemate is a frequent theme in endgame studies and other chess compositions. An example is the "White to Play and Draw" study at left, which was composed by the American master Frederick Rhine in 2005 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. 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! Qxc4 (best) 7.Nxc4 Kxc4 8.Qf3, White will easily draw at least. According to endgame tablebases, with perfect play by both sides White wins in 62 more moves. 2.Qe8+! 2.Qxe5? Qb7+ 3.Kd8 Qd7#. 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! (diagram at right) 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 remarkable composition by A.J. Roycroft. White draws with 1.c7! g5 (1...Ka1 2.c8(R) transposes to the main line; 1...f5 2.c8(Q) Bc3 3.Qxf5+ draws by stalemate) 2.c8(R)!! (2.c8(Q)? Ka1 3.Qc2 (or 3.Qc1) b1(Q) wins) Ka1 (2...Ng6 3.Rc1+ forces Black to capture, stalemating White) 2...b1(Q) 3.Rc2!!, and now 3...Qxc2 or 3...g5 is stalemate, while otherwise White will sacrifice his rook on b2) 3.Rc2!! (not 3.Rc1+?? b1(Q)+! 4.Rxb1+ Bxb1#; now White threatens 4.Rxb2 and 5.Rxa2+, forcing stalemate or perpetual check) 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+ (diagram at right). As in Evans-Reshevsky, Black cannot escape the "eternal rook".
Stalemate in problems
Some chess problems require (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 – see diagram at left). 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 – see diagram at right).
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. Such positions are not seen in practical play. There is also a bizarre chess variant, , that begins from a double stalemate position.
The fastest known game ending in a double stalemate position was discovered by Enzo Minerva and published in the Italian newspaper l'Unitŕ 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 shatranj, stalemate was a win for the side administering it . This practice persisted in chess as played in early 15th-century Spain . However, Lucena (c. 1497) 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, a stalemate has at various times been:
- A win for White (10th century Arabia and parts of medieval Europe )
- A half-win for White; in a game played for stakes, White would win half the stake (18th century Spain)
- A win for Black in 9th century India , 17th century Russia , on the Central Plain of Europe in the 17th century , and 17th-18th century England . This rule continued to be published in Hoyle's Games Improved as late as 1866 .
- Not allowed. 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 , a player was not allowed to play a move that would stalemate the opponent . The same was true of Burmese chess, another chess variant, at the time Murray wrote . 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 .
- The forfeiture of Black's turn to move (medieval France) , although other medieval French sources treat stalemate as a draw .
- A draw. This was the rule in 13th century Italy and also stated in the German Cracow Poem (1422), which noted however that some players treated stalemate as equivalent to checkmate . This rule was ultimately adopted throughout Europe, but not in England until the 19th century, after being introduced there by Jacob Sarratt , .
Proposed rule change
Periodically, writers have argued that stalemate should again be made a win for the side causing the stalemate. For example, 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" . Eleven 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." 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 material; 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 (under the current rule). If the proposed rule change were made, both of these situations would become wins for the superior side instead of draws.
- The endgame of king and pawn versus king would always be a win unless the pawn can be captured. If the pawn cannot be captured or promoted, the defending king can be forced into a stalemate (see diagram 1).
- Two knights and a king can stalemate a lone king , so that ending would no longer be a draw (see Two knights endgame).
- A rook pawn plus a 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 (see diagram 2). (See wrong rook pawn).
- A king and rook versus a king and bishop would be a win for the side with the rook because of a forced stalemate (see diagram 3). (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.
- The defensive drawing techniques with a bishop pawn or rook pawn on the seventh rank with its king nearby versus a queen would not work, because they rely on stalemate . (See queen versus pawn endgame.)
Chess variants
In suicide chess, stalemate is not necessarily a draw . Depending on the variant, stalemate can be a draw, or a win for either the player with fewer pieces (a draw results if the players have the same number of pieces) or for the stalemated player.
Stalemate as a metaphor
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 a dead heat, standoff, or deadlock . Golombek and Soltis note that this usage is a misnomer since, unlike in chess, the situation is often a temporary one that is ultimately resolved, even if it seems currently intractable.
See also
External links
|
| |
|
|
