#21 Best answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#History_of_the_stalemate_rule says:
The stalemate rule has had a convoluted history (Murray 1913:61). 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 Chaturanga, stalemate was a win for the side administering it (Murray 1913:229,267). This practice persisted in chess as played in early 15th-century Spain (Murray 1913:781). However, Lucena (c. 1497) treated stalemate as an inferior form of victory (Murray 1913:461), which in games played for money won only half the stake, and this continued to be the case in Spain as late as 1600 (Murray 1913:833). 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 (Murray 1913:60–61,466). That rule disappeared in England before 1820, being replaced by the French and Italian rule that a stalemate was a drawn game (Murray 1913:391).
Assume that Black is stalemated. Throughout history, such a stalemate has at various times been:
A win for White in 10th century Arabia (Davidson 1981:65) and parts of medieval Europe (Murray 1913:463–64, 781) (McCrary 2004:26).
A half-win for White; in a game played for stakes, White would win half the stake (18th century Spain) (Davidson 1981:65).
A win for Black in 9th century India (Murray 1913:56–57,60–61), 17th century Russia (Davidson 1981:65), on the Central Plain of Europe in the 17th century (Murray 1913:388–89), and 17th-18th century England (Murray 1913:60–61,466). This rule continued to be published in Hoyle's Games Improved as late as 1866 (Sunnucks 1970:438).
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 (Murray 1913:78), a player was not allowed to play a move that would stalemate the opponent (Murray 1913:82,84). The same was true of Burmese chess, another chess variant, at the time of writing (Murray 1913:113). 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 (Davidson 1981:65).
The forfeiture of Black's turn to move (medieval France) (Murray 1913:464–66) (Davidson 1981:64–65), although other medieval French sources treat stalemate as a draw (Murray 1913:464–66).
A draw. This was the rule in 13th century Italy (Murray 1913:461–62) and also stated in the German Cracow Poem (1422), which noted however that some players treated stalemate as equivalent to checkmate (Murray 1913:463–64). This rule was ultimately adopted throughout Europe, but not in England until the 19th century, after being introduced there by Jacob Sarratt (Murray 1913:391) (Davidson 1981:64–66), (Sunnucks 1970:438).
The stalemate rule has had a convoluted history (Murray 1913:61). 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 Chaturanga, stalemate was a win for the side administering it (Murray 1913:229,267). This practice persisted in chess as played in early 15th-century Spain (Murray 1913:781). However, Lucena (c. 1497) treated stalemate as an inferior form of victory (Murray 1913:461), which in games played for money won only half the stake, and this continued to be the case in Spain as late as 1600 (Murray 1913:833). 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 (Murray 1913:60–61,466). That rule disappeared in England before 1820, being replaced by the French and Italian rule that a stalemate was a drawn game (Murray 1913:391).
Assume that Black is stalemated. Throughout history, such a stalemate has at various times been:
A win for White in 10th century Arabia (Davidson 1981:65) and parts of medieval Europe (Murray 1913:463–64, 781) (McCrary 2004:26).
A half-win for White; in a game played for stakes, White would win half the stake (18th century Spain) (Davidson 1981:65).
A win for Black in 9th century India (Murray 1913:56–57,60–61), 17th century Russia (Davidson 1981:65), on the Central Plain of Europe in the 17th century (Murray 1913:388–89), and 17th-18th century England (Murray 1913:60–61,466). This rule continued to be published in Hoyle's Games Improved as late as 1866 (Sunnucks 1970:438).
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 (Murray 1913:78), a player was not allowed to play a move that would stalemate the opponent (Murray 1913:82,84). The same was true of Burmese chess, another chess variant, at the time of writing (Murray 1913:113). 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 (Davidson 1981:65).
The forfeiture of Black's turn to move (medieval France) (Murray 1913:464–66) (Davidson 1981:64–65), although other medieval French sources treat stalemate as a draw (Murray 1913:464–66).
A draw. This was the rule in 13th century Italy (Murray 1913:461–62) and also stated in the German Cracow Poem (1422), which noted however that some players treated stalemate as equivalent to checkmate (Murray 1913:463–64). This rule was ultimately adopted throughout Europe, but not in England until the 19th century, after being introduced there by Jacob Sarratt (Murray 1913:391) (Davidson 1981:64–66), (Sunnucks 1970:438).
If stalemating your opponent is not allowed, some further problems can occur:
lichess .org/analysis/K1krb3/2pb1p2/P1p1pP2/2P1P3/8/8/8/7n_w_-_-#0
1. Ka7?? loses because black can sac the knight in time and thereby give white more moves.
However, by todays rules, 1. a7! draws because any legal black response will give stalemate.
But what would have happened here in those variants where stalemating is illegal? Would 1. a7 have won because it forces black to play an illegal move? Would it have drawn because it's sort of a "meta-stalemate"? Or would 1. a7 itself be illegal because it ultimately forces stalemate, so that white would have had to play the losing 1. Ka7 instead?
Edit: Embedding positions created with the board editor doesn't work. "Game not found" will be desplayed instead.
lichess .org/analysis/K1krb3/2pb1p2/P1p1pP2/2P1P3/8/8/8/7n_w_-_-#0
1. Ka7?? loses because black can sac the knight in time and thereby give white more moves.
However, by todays rules, 1. a7! draws because any legal black response will give stalemate.
But what would have happened here in those variants where stalemating is illegal? Would 1. a7 have won because it forces black to play an illegal move? Would it have drawn because it's sort of a "meta-stalemate"? Or would 1. a7 itself be illegal because it ultimately forces stalemate, so that white would have had to play the losing 1. Ka7 instead?
Edit: Embedding positions created with the board editor doesn't work. "Game not found" will be desplayed instead.
"I agree that many stalemates should be a win. Many times I drew a completely won game due to this stupid rule."
It happens to me too, but always when I have made a stupid move. You are supposed to know the rule, not taking it in account is stupid, though forgiveable when playing bullet (even GMs blunder when playing them).
It happens to me too, but always when I have made a stupid move. You are supposed to know the rule, not taking it in account is stupid, though forgiveable when playing bullet (even GMs blunder when playing them).
How about starting a thread on the theme "Why is checkmate a win?" next time. :)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.