How is this a stalemate?
Sort:
Jan 25, 2025
0
#2
Yes king has no moves you are right about that, but king is not in check, so it’s stalemate
AlexWShef wrote:
Yes king has no moves you are right about that, but king is not in check, so it’s stalemate
Yeah... and that is faulty logic. Nobody gonna surround you, to accept anythin but unconditional surrender. I mean, there are moves... make the move, and its knocked. Yeah, chess is a lousy game... but, for a bit of a mental excersize is useful...
There are alot more complex games, not to mention reality itself, and most of the computing is useless practically, as a skill, as there are simply too many variable to be bothered with.
What is usefull... can you see it!?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nMEPGM6Kkqw?feature=share
AlexWShef wrote:
Yes king has no moves you are right about that, but king is not in check, so it’s stalemate
So, in retrospect... a stalemate is still a mate - it is not a draw, and it deserves some points, as it is a win, not a draw.
So, if developers here aint dead, they should get on that.
Jan 27, 2025
0
#5
Think of it as an equivalent of surrounding the enemy, then getting drunk celebrating, letting him escape to fight another day.
Now on a serious note. The goal of the game is to checkmate. In this game you lost the ability to checkmate the opponent, so it is an automatic draw. You need to make sure not to allow a situation where the opponent doesn't have legal moves while not being in check.
There are much deeper reasons why stalemate exists, the game of chess would be more straightforward otherwise. One pawn advantage would mean more etc.
Take this example. If stalemate was a win, than this would be a win:
White can't promote a pawn, can't make any kind of progress but this would be a win if stalemate was a win. There are more complex examples as well, and this would make the game of chess unbalanced and poorer so to speak.
For instance there are basically examples where the winning side makes a mistake and allows a series of checks where it is either a perpetual check and a draw because of it, by repeating the position 3 times, or the side that made a mistake has to take the piece and allows a stalemate.
Some beautiful and creative saves wouldn't exist.
Here is more on stalemate, try to understand it completely in order to not allow it in the future.
https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8557490-what-is-stalemate
nklristic wrote:
Think of it as an equivalent of surrounding the enemy, then getting drunk celebrating, letting him escape to fight another day.
Now on a serious note. The goal of the game is to checkmate. In this game you lost the ability to checkmate the opponent, so it is an automatic draw. You need to make sure not to allow a situation where the opponent doesn't have legal moves while not being in check.
There are much deeper reasons why stalemate exists, the game of chess would be more straightforward otherwise. One pawn advantage would mean more etc.
Take this example. If stalemate was a win, than this would be a win:
White can't promote a pawn, can't make any kind of progress but this would be a win if stalemate was a win. There are more complex examples as well, and this would make the game of chess unbalanced and poorer so to speak.
For instance there are basically examples where the winning side makes a mistake and allows a series of checks where it is either a perpetual check and a draw because of it, by repeating the position 3 times, or the side that made a mistake has to take the piece and allows a stalemate.
Some beautiful and creative saves wouldn't exist.
Here is more on stalemate, try to understand it completely in order to not allow it in the future.
https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8557490-what-is-stalemate
First of all, the analogy is not valid, as there is no way to slip out.
The goal is to win. There is draw, and there are mates: check mate, and stale mate. Stale might not be as good, but a mate is a mate - win. As i said, if you let a surrounded king move, hes off the board with the next move.
Now the issue here is that the game here doesnt recognize that draw is not the same as stalemate, therefore, i want my points. 
Maybe its not as clean as checkmate, but its still a win.
That is a fundamental issue, and that has nothing to do with chess.
See, here, i have chess community in checkmate, and i mean, its like, check - its mate. Either you fix your faulty rules, or dont, but that would be what makes life stale
.Learn to make the rules - call the admins, call the devs. Stop noob.
Simply superior logic.
And compare the board in your example, and mine... yours, very close game, mine, total obliteration.
Or you can think about the move, while the time runs out...
Jan 28, 2025
0
#7
omnipaul wrote:
Stalemate has a specific chess definition which is not quite the same as the standard meaning. A stalemate in chess is any situation where:
The player whose turn it is to move has no legal moves available to them
AND
The player whose turn it is to move is NOT in check.
That's it. It covers a wide variety of situations from the very close (nklristic's position above) to the very one-sided (your position above), or even one-sided in the other direction (where the player with more material is the one that has been stalemated). From the opening all the way to the end.
In your game, the move Re5 was a massive blunder that gave away a half-point by putting the opponent's king into stalemate. Instead, the simple Rc7 would have been checkmate and a win. You have to remain vigilant throughout the game not to allow stalemates or other drawing tricks such as threefold repetition or timeout vs. insufficient material that would allow a player to salvage a half-point.
As to the rationale for stalemate to be a draw, it is simple. In your case, it is black's turn to move. They have no move available to them, so they can not make their move. They have not lost (as only checkmate, resignation, and (sometimes) running out of time are the only ways to lose).
The game can not continue until black makes a move. Black has no move they can make, so the game is not able to be continued at all. Stalemate is effectively, then, a null result with each side getting half the score.
Jan 28, 2025
0
#8
ellipsis_GG wrote:
nklristic wrote:
Think of it as an equivalent of surrounding the enemy, then getting drunk celebrating, letting him escape to fight another day.
Now on a serious note. The goal of the game is to checkmate. In this game you lost the ability to checkmate the opponent, so it is an automatic draw. You need to make sure not to allow a situation where the opponent doesn't have legal moves while not being in check.
There are much deeper reasons why stalemate exists, the game of chess would be more straightforward otherwise. One pawn advantage would mean more etc.
Take this example. If stalemate was a win, than this would be a win:
White can't promote a pawn, can't make any kind of progress but this would be a win if stalemate was a win. There are more complex examples as well, and this would make the game of chess unbalanced and poorer so to speak.
For instance there are basically examples where the winning side makes a mistake and allows a series of checks where it is either a perpetual check and a draw because of it, by repeating the position 3 times, or the side that made a mistake has to take the piece and allows a stalemate.
Some beautiful and creative saves wouldn't exist.
Here is more on stalemate, try to understand it completely in order to not allow it in the future.
https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8557490-what-is-stalemate
First of all, the analogy is not valid, as there is no way to slip out.
The goal is to win. There is draw, and there are mates: check mate, and stale mate. Stale might not be as good, but a mate is a mate - win. As i said, if you let a surrounded king move, hes off the board with the next move.
Now the issue here is that the game here doesnt recognize that draw is not the same as stalemate, therefore, i want my points.
Maybe its not as clean as checkmate, but its still a win.
That is a fundamental issue, and that has nothing to do with chess.
See, here, i have chess community in checkmate, and i mean, its like, check - its mate. Either you fix your faulty rules, or dont, but that would be what makes life stale
.Learn to make the rules - call the admins, call the devs. Stop noob.
Simply superior logic.
And compare the board in your example, and mine... yours, very close game, mine, total obliteration.
In latvian, people say mats, which is, mate... no check, no stale... just mate. GG
In Serbian we say "mat" for checkmate, and "pat" for stalemate. The only thing I can concede is that the wording in English language can be a bit illogical for non native speaker in this case.
But apart from that, here is the actual meaning of the word outside of chess:
a situation in which neither group involved in an argument can win or get an advantage and no action can be taken
It doesn't sound like a win to me.
On a more serious note, stalemate is a type of draw (there are few other types). The goal of the game is to checkmate the opponent's king, which you didn't do.
As for comparing the board in those 2 cases. The problem is that both examples are finished by a stalemate - a situation where one side doesn't have a legal move to continue the game (while his king is not in check).
So, if your example would be a win, this other one would have to be a win as well, and as you have noticed yourself, it makes no sense for my example to be a win.
So, the only thing that remains is that you accept your mistake and learn from it, because you could have easily prevented it.
Or you don't have to, that is up to you.
OMG. Yet another noob who does not understand the rules of chess wants to lecture the chess community on their lack of 'logic.' How about we have one person who does not understand the rules take the initiative to learn them instead of changing a rule that has existed for hundreds of years which more than 600 million chess players abide by?
Tempetown wrote:
OMG. Yet another noob who does not understand the rules of chess wants to lecture the chess community on their lack of 'logic.' How about we have one person who does not understand the rules take the initiative to learn them instead of changing a rule that has existed for hundreds of years which more than 600 million chess players abide by?
Nonono. buddy, im here, pointing to the light. Rules of chess... exactly... im here talking about what? Superior logic.
600 millions? Fools, if you cant see it, right? Draw is not a stalemate - as i said, nothing to do with chess. If there are no moves left - time runs out? What then? YOU LOSE. Make the move? Piece is knocked. It is not a draw... it is a loss, either way.
So yeah, get right.
The problem is... people who dont understand rules... as they treat them as somethin set in stone, but no, rules are just rules, and they are supposed to be improved, always. Otherwise, life wont ever get better.
Here, i gave you an example, how your rules are flawed. Get right - here is a chance.
ellipsis_GG wrote:
Tempetown wrote:
OMG. Yet another noob who does not understand the rules of chess wants to lecture the chess community on their lack of 'logic.' How about we have one person who does not understand the rules take the initiative to learn them instead of changing a rule that has existed for hundreds of years which more than 600 million chess players abide by?
Nonono. buddy, im here, pointing to the light. Rules of chess... exactly... im here talking about what? Superior logic.
600 millions? Fools, if you cant see it, right? Draw is not a stalemate - as i said, nothing to do with chess. If there are no moves left - time runs out? What then? YOU LOSE. Make the move? Piece is knocked. It is not a draw... it is a loss, either way.
So yeah, get right.
The problem is... people who dont understand rules... as they treat them as somethin set in stone, but no, rules are just rules, and they are supposed to be improved, always. Otherwise, life wont ever get better.
Here, i gave you an example, how your rules are flawed. Get right - here is a chance.
yes yes, we know. you are smarter than all of the other 605 million chess players. we should all just bow to your 'superior' logic!!!!
ellipsis_GG wrote:
Now the issue here is that the game here doesnt recognize that draw is not the same as stalemate, therefore, i want my points.
If you don't want to learn the most basic rules of a game (any game), you'll have a tough time.
ellipsis_GG wrote:
Tempetown wrote:
OMG. Yet another noob who does not understand the rules of chess wants to lecture the chess community on their lack of 'logic.' How about we have one person who does not understand the rules take the initiative to learn them instead of changing a rule that has existed for hundreds of years which more than 600 million chess players abide by?
Nonono. buddy, im here, pointing to the light. Rules of chess... exactly... im here talking about what? Superior logic.
600 millions? Fools, if you cant see it, right? Draw is not a stalemate - as i said, nothing to do with chess. If there are no moves left - time runs out? What then? YOU LOSE. Make the move? Piece is knocked. It is not a draw... it is a loss, either way.
So yeah, get right.
The problem is... people who dont understand rules... as they treat them as somethin set in stone, but no, rules are just rules, and they are supposed to be improved, always. Otherwise, life wont ever get better.
Here, i gave you an example, how your rules are flawed. Get right - here is a chance.
Yes , your logic is so superior that 600 million people are wrong and you are right. Yeah, thats it.
Tempetown wrote:
ellipsis_GG wrote:
Tempetown wrote:
OMG. Yet another noob who does not understand the rules of chess wants to lecture the chess community on their lack of 'logic.' How about we have one person who does not understand the rules take the initiative to learn them instead of changing a rule that has existed for hundreds of years which more than 600 million chess players abide by?
Nonono. buddy, im here, pointing to the light. Rules of chess... exactly... im here talking about what? Superior logic.
600 millions? Fools, if you cant see it, right? Draw is not a stalemate - as i said, nothing to do with chess. If there are no moves left - time runs out? What then? YOU LOSE. Make the move? Piece is knocked. It is not a draw... it is a loss, either way.
So yeah, get right.
The problem is... people who dont understand rules... as they treat them as somethin set in stone, but no, rules are just rules, and they are supposed to be improved, always. Otherwise, life wont ever get better.
Here, i gave you an example, how your rules are flawed. Get right - here is a chance.
Yes , your logic is so superior that 600 million people are wrong and you are right. Yeah, thats it.
Yeah, you said it... i must be a genius...
How is a game like this a draw? Im winning by time, and by material... just because i failed to checkmate in however many moves, makes me equal on the board and clock? It does not... maybe in 2 more moves i would? Afterall, i got plenty pieces to play with, and plenty time.
Chess is a war game, and that is not how wars work...
I mean, dont you see... you got no arguments here, except foolish stubborness, with 600 millions to serve as your excuse? Pathetic.
See... it grows, or it does not... and one should not waste time on things that dont grow - that is, if one wishes to grow... and if i have to choose submission to inferior logic, or moving on with superior logic, then i choose the latter. Afterall, life is more than being a chess nerd.
CHESS HAS BEEN A LOUSY GAME (C) FISCHER :"D
So the question is quite funny... are these 600 millions of people reasonable, or just fools for rules. Game theory and development. Think about it.
ellipsis_GG wrote:
How is a game like this a draw? Im winning by time, and by material... just because i failed to checkmate in however many moves
Skill issue.
Even 4-year-old kids can learn what "stalemate" is, so maybe you could too.
insane wrote:
OP, by your logic this is a win for white.
False, but here is the easy recap.
The issue is that the winning condition is mate...
Surrounded unit is surrounded - cant make a move - time runs out, and i can wait, but the manner thing would be to just resign. And, if it could move, it is knocked whatever the move - that is not a draw. Draw is when neither can be caught. So, i want my points - for the cap. Simple.
And that is also another issue... why is there some nooby restriction preventing mistakes with king? Its part of the game. Choices.
So, a couple more points, why chess is a lousy game. 
ellipsis_GG wrote:
So, a couple more points, why chess is a lousy game.
You are doing great. First you complain about the most basic rules, then you insult the entire chess community, and now you insult the game itself. On a chess website. This is the way to get popular.
Maybe you should just leave and never come back.
Hi, could you guys explain this game logic to a noob?
Stalemate, wtf? As far as i cant tell, no moves.