A stalemate is a draw which occurs when one side has no legal moves but is not in check, as was the case here.
Why was this a stalemate??
Sort:
You needed to leave to your opponent’s king squares to escape. It is a good strategy when in a loosing position to look for a draw by stalemate if possible that is when your king can’t move but it is not in check. It requires a very good knowledge of the endgame and/or mistakes by the opponent... :)
So you can run out of moves, even when the timer isn't finished? Meaning we're limited to a number of moves? Because I woulda put him in check ( I was white ), as I had 55 seconds left to do so. Obviously with 3 queens & extra pieces cornering his king was gonna happen, would have took 20 seconds to corner his king, yet I had 55 seconds left. Than it forced me to stalemate, before I got to corner his king, which is lame.
Baltoluthien wrote:
So you can run out of moves, even when the timer isn't finished? Meaning we're limited to a number of moves?
Facepalm.
Did you actually read what Strangemover has replied?
Yes but why did you promote to 3 queens? You just need 2 or 1 to checkmate. I'll give you some advice- never promote to 3 queens as:
a. there's no use
b. it'll always be a stalemate
And I guess this answers you're question. A stalemate is when 1 party has no legal moves, but they are not under check.
Mar 20, 2021
0
#7
The timer has nothing to do with it. In your game it is blacks turn to move but he has no legal moves. This is a draw by stalemate. If it were blacks turn to move and he was in check with no legal moves you would win by checkmate. Do you see the difference? Here you wouldn't have put him in check because the game ended. You didn't get the chance because it is finished. The stalemate was not forced by anyone or anything but you. It was you that made the final move Qf5 causing a stalemate.
Mar 20, 2021
0
#9
It is black's move. There is no legal move black can make. Black is not in check so it is not checkmate. White does not get to make two moves in a row in order to checkmate black. As no more moves can be made in this game, it is over. As neither side has won, the game is a draw.
aviation18 wrote:
Yes but why did you promote to 3 queens? You just need 2 or 1 to checkmate. I'll give you some advice- never promote to 3 queens as:
b. it'll always be a stalemate
um... that's not actually how it works
Coz you need an ad blocker.
Ransome01 wrote:
Coz you need an ad blocker.
???
CRY0TIC_X wrote:
Bigchungus_Is_Sus wrote:
who plays chess with 8 bit pieces
Ikr
i do
Some advice from a scrub:
If you are up that much material and are promoting pawns left and right, promote to rooks rather than queens, and do the ladder checkmate. Safest option out there if you don't want to stalemate your opponent.
Also, learn endgame checkmates with limited pieces, so that you never actually NEED to promote that many pawns just to checkmate.
I see. He wasn't able to make any moves, so for the sake of a dumb rule, he isn't forced to lose, but it's a stalemate. They should just force him to lose if he can't move, sheesh, pointless rule.
Tho I'll take the advice to win on limited pieces or switch to rooks. Thanks.
Mar 20, 2021
0
#19
Baltoluthien wrote:
I see. He wasn't able to make any moves, so for the sake of a dumb rule, he isn't forced to lose, but it's a stalemate. They should just force him to lose if he can't move, sheesh, pointless rule.
The stalemate rule is something new players must overcome and understand. Whether it should exist has been debated endlessly, and there are many threads in these forums if you want to do that. Have a read and you will perhaps start to see that it is not pointless. In any case, it does exist and must be accepted. In this thread you have described it as 'lame' and a 'dumb rule'...the rules exist the same for everybody, it's up to you to understand and adapt to them. In short, to get better at chess. In this game you missed mate in 1 on no fewer than 11 occasions - this is what is lame and dumb, not the stalemate rule. If you had seen even 1 of these then the stalemate would never have happened and you would have got your win. Chess is a game of personal responsibility, better to own it and try to improve than cry in the forums about the rules.
Strangemover wrote:
Baltoluthien wrote:
I see. He wasn't able to make any moves, so for the sake of a dumb rule, he isn't forced to lose, but it's a stalemate. They should just force him to lose if he can't move, sheesh, pointless rule.
The stalemate rule is something new players must overcome and understand. Whether it should exist has been debated endlessly, and there are many threads in these forums if you want to do that. Have a read and you will perhaps start to see that it is not pointless. In any case, it does exist and must be accepted. In this thread you have described it as 'lame' and a 'dumb rule'...the rules exist the same for everybody, it's up to you to understand and adapt to them. In short, to get better at chess. In this game you missed mate in 1 on no fewer than 11 occasions - this is what is lame and dumb, not the stalemate rule. If you had seen even 1 of these then the stalemate would never have happened and you would have got your win. Chess is a game of personal responsibility, better to own it and try to improve than cry in the forums about the rules.
Might wanna chill a bit and give the new guy a break...
Idk if this is the wrong forum section for this / am new. Tho I don't understand this, I'm white with 1 minute left, then...... automatic stalemate when I have 3 queens about to position to win, the heck? No repeat moves, like I said 55 seconds left, more than enough to position for a win...