The Keys to a Good Stalemate

I've found a few criteria really help make stalemates possible when the game is otherwise totally lost. Here is a recent example of me using these tactics: 

• Obviously you must purposefully remove all of your own pieces, to make the stalemate possible.
• Opponent has a few major pieces, creating threats and removing more squares than they're aware of. This one is key – especially when it's a knight and it's hard to see the squares it's removing. 
• You move quickly and decisively, reducing the amount of time they have to calculate. Sometimes you move to counterintuitive squares (near their pieces) to ensure you have fewer options on the following move. If you move to the open part of the board, you'll keep too many options for yourself.
• You allow them to promote, especially when the promotion itself is what causes the stalemate! It's so tempting to promote – a lot of players do it automatically without realizing it will cause the stalemate. 
• While advanced players won't be fooled by any of the above, I've found that many players get caught up in the "fun" of closing down a completely won game, and often do stupid things like promote 3+ queens, or toy with your king in ways that lead to unwitting draws. 

Obviously there are many other factors, but I've found the above to help me grab stalemates out of totally lost positions. Of course, there is etiquette in resigning in such positions too, but I think at my level (~1700-1800) you can never be sure the opponent is capable of closing and it's worth trying. 

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/943126581

Nice ideas :-)

In general, any system working towards stalemate is flawed. Better take your chances improving your position and restore the balance of the game. Stalemates arrive as rare opportunities to be taken with gratitude. Some endgames carry built in stalemate patterns like K+Q vs K+R simply because they are theoretically hard to win without coming near stalemate positions. They are like submerged obstacles in shallow waters you need to negotiate before arriving in a safe harbour. Pushing for stalemates in positions not predisposed for them is a lost cause. Only the weakest players will hang themselves when given a loose piece of rope. Don't waste your time and move on to the next game.

That's good advice!  I always tell my students to ask the question, "If I move here, where is my opponent going to move?" 

That will help avoid stalemate.  

What?

That doesn't say how to stalemate though.

One particular type of stalemate involves the "superrook".  The king is already in its stalemate position but that player still has a rook.  The rook then moves right next to the opposing king and delivers a check with no protection.  The term superrook is used because the rook is invulnerable to capture without committing the stalemate.

Think Black Kg8, Nf8, Rf7, Pg7, Ph7, Re2, Na3, White Ka1, Pa2, Rg1.  White to draw plays Rg7+ leaving Black the option of taking the rook (stalemate) or Kh8 Rxh7+ (now Black either bounces back and forth between g8 and h8 while being checked or Black takes the rook and delivers stalemate.

When it is a queen being thrown away instead of a rook it is generally more likely that actually capturing the queen will be forced.

Another idea is repetition and it does not require throwing pieces away.  I had one recently with my Black Kh7, Pg7, Ph6, Qh3 vs White's Qf8, Rf1, Kd1, Pc5, Pb5.  Playing Qe6+ allowed driving the White king through the e1-a1 squares while checking on e3-a3.

As if it's possible to force stalemate, it's not.

In some positions it is.  If you are stalemated except for your mobile queen then playing Qxg7+ with the opposing king on h8 is just one example of forcing a stalemate.

Stalemate is a defensive resource in various positions to prevent the opponent from making otherwise good moves.

Such situations are rare, so it is more of an idea of being aware of their possibility as opposed to longer term plans to explicitly achieve them.

:tup

Your first example is flawed because White's Rook does not need to be captured, a draw can be achieved by repetition as below

In your 2nd example (I assume the key move is 1...Qd3+ because Qe6+ is not possible) the draw is as you say eventually achieved by repetition. That said the analysis given is incorrect because the White King is free to move in either direction on the 1st rank and cannot be forced into the a1 corner as below.

My point on forcing a stalemate was that it can only be achieved if your opponent blunders which I must now admit is a pretty poor argument because the very same can be said of forcing checkmate. Here is a classic example of a forced stalemate from the 1883 game between Englishman Henry Bird famed for his 1.f4 Bird's Opening and Austrian Berthold Englisch, annotated by GM Savielly Tartakower. Skip to 39.Rxe8 for the lead in to the forced stalemate.

Hi Shoreditch,  Thanks for correcting Qe6 to Qd3.  I may have been inexact in wording by using through instead of among.

I said I was using the stalemate threat to discuss a superrook repetition or stalemate result, and mentioned that if the rook was a queen then it was more likely that a stalemate could be forced (which would be the case if the example rook was a queen).

Yes, your example is of a threat of stalemate but it can, like the majority of stalemates, be avoided by repetition so its only a stalemate if Black blunders and takes the Rook.  Swap the Rook for a Queen and 1.Qxg7+ is a stalemate because Black has no option other than to capture the Queen leaving White without a move. Now whether this is a forced stalemate will depend on the position being reached without blunder, see Bird vs Englisch above where the stalemate is forced without blunder.

Moving quickly to try to limit your opponent's thinking time is almost never a good strategy. 

The best stalemate is when this happens

The very nature of bullet and time scrambles - Inaccuracies, blunders, missed wins, mouse slips and diirty flagging.