How can my next move result in checkmate if I'm not currently in check

Huh

Please don't spread misinformation. Only your point 2 is called stalemate. The other two are other forms of draw.

Sorry, just to clarify—since it’s Black’s turn and any move the Black king makes would result in checkmate without White needing to move, does that mean every possible move for Black is illegal? If so, does that mean the game ends in a stalemate?

Also, what exactly is a “forced checkmate in one”? Wouldn’t that apply here, allowing White to win instead?

Well, yes, in a way you are right, but you are making it unnecessarily complicated. If a side has no legal moves and is not in check, it's called "stalemate" and the game is a draw. It's a draw in the moment that white made the last move in the above position. Black's next move never happens.

(By the way, you put up the position in a way that it's white to move there. I'm sure it wasn't what you wanted.)

"Forced mate" means there is mate no matter what the losing side does. “Mate in one” means "mate in 1 move".

It's not stalemate, since you can move your pawn. If you didn't have a pawn, it would be stalemate.

Move the pawn? Where?

Black's pawn is blocked by the Bishop - I suspect you thought the board was the other way round

Oh, I see. Yes, you're right, oops.

Respect to the OP here! On learning about stalemate they have not done the usual chess.com forum thing of complaining that the Stalemate rule is wrong - and that chess is therefore wrong - and that all chess-players who like the rules of the game the way they are wrong.

Hello everyone, and thank you for the information!

My brother, nephews, and I recently started learning chess about a month ago, so we really appreciate everyone’s patience in answering our questions.

We came across a rule stating that a player cannot be checkmated without first being in check. However, on our board, Black’s king is not currently in check, yet it is their turn to move, and any move they make will result in their loss—without White having to play another move. This has left us a bit confused, and we’d love some clarification on the following points:

1. Can someone confirm whether it is indeed a rule that a game cannot end in checkmate unless the king has first been in check?

2. If that rule is incorrect (which I’m starting to suspect), then based on our board position, this would actually be a stalemate, correct?

3. Since the Black king has no legal moves—because every possible move would place it in check, which is illegal—this means there are no available moves left, resulting in a stalemate. Is that correct?

4. If White had instead placed the Black king in check on their previous turn, it would have been checkmate, and White would have won. That simple move would have completely changed the outcome—meaning this entire post wouldn’t have been necessary! Is that also correct?

Thanks again for your help!

What I failed to mention—and what I think contributed to the confusion—is that, as my brother, nephews, and I clumsily navigate this beautiful, intricate, and complex game, none of us actually noticed that Black’s king was already in a position where its next move would result in a stalemate. We had moved on, playing random pieces on the other side of the board, only to later realize it was Black’s turn—at which point we discovered they had no legal moves left. 😂🤦‍♂️

Also please forgive any redundancy - just trying to get a grasp of this.

1. Why yes if the king is attacked its called check, and if the king is attacked and cannot evade the attack in any way its checkmate and the other side has won. There is no checkmate without check.

2. Yes.

3. Black has no legal move, thus they are in stalemate and the game ended in a draw.

4. Assuming that black cannot evade the check anymore, yes they would be checkmate.

spidr-19 wrote:1. Can someone confirm whether it is indeed a rule that a game cannot end in checkmate unless the king has first been in check?The King must be in check to be checkmated, but it does not mean it had to be in check previously, no. That 'rule' / 'guide' tries to emphasize/clarify that your position where black king cannot move is not a checkmate because the King is trapped, but indeed a stalemate because although it is trapped , it is not in check. There is indeed no rule that states that the king had to be in check previously to be checkmated now, I suspect it might be a clumsy attempt to try to emphasize that the trapped King must be in check to win, else it is stalemate. ..
Even my 'clarifications' seems clumsy

Thanks so much for this thorough explanation - this clears up our confusion entirely.

To settle a debate I’m having with my nephews and brother—after sharing your explanation and insisting that the board clearly shows a stalemate, despite Black being in a losing position—would you say that the real blunder was on White’s part for allowing the game to end in a stalemate instead of a win, by failing to check the king when the opportunity arose?

Well, it was extremely difficult for him to avoid stalemate, because he didn't know that it existed. He probably was playing on autopilot, not thinking about the moves, certain of winning.

But I'm sure there was several moves (instead of the fateful stalemating one) that would have been just checkmate in 1 move.

Beautiful.

Thank you all very much for your input. You've mitigated a brewing internal family fued because of this board.

Cheers and respect to you all 🙏