Why Stalemate SHOULD Be A Win In Chess!

Join IM Danny Rensch as he explains why he believes stalemates becoming wins could revitalize many areas of chess knowledge that has been deemed drawable by stalemate.

Wanna play all the AlphaZero Variants and more!? Sign up for our Beta Club at then go to

Watch our AlphaZero summary video:

Sign up for FREE online play:
Like us on Facebook:
Follow us on Twitter:
Follow us on Instagram:

225 Comments

  1. I personally think stalemate makes sense and that it's fair. the board dooesn't know which player is better or who knows how to win. so if the king can't move and the player can't defend themselves and we conclude that to be a win then that's not really fair and we can't have different rules for low rated players and high rated players cause then it gets more confusinng when they have to play each other. I really just don't see a way around it.

  2. Other idea: if insufficient mating material, taller player wins. Now hear me out…

  3. Bare king definitely should be a win. If someone can´t win even if opp superhypermegablunders then he doesn´t deserve to draw either.

  4. I h8 stalemate! H8 IT! im soo good the games where i destroy my oponent i can never checkmate them im just tooo effin dumb!

  5. i agree this is a major problem for highlevel chess and it makes chess a lot less beginner friendly at the same time.

    but first the most important point: the chess rules should not be changed, but it should become a new game which might or might not turn out to be better/ more popular than chess.

    this chess would help the longterm future of chess.

    in my mind the only major problem could be game balance of black and white, but that should be relatively easy to check for with gamedata.

    the second best defense for the rule would be "this rule allows for creative comebacks and interesting moves".

    sure in general comeback mechanics do have a value, and keep the game interesting.

    with a changed rule a lot more people
    would resign earlyer and it would shift the focus of chess towards the midgame.

    but is that a problem? the midgame is arguably the core gameplay of chess, endgame works very differently and from a gamedesign perspective this is a bit less clean and can be a jarring change of pace.

    this would streamline chess a bit and some people might not like it. but while there are now creative ways to force a stalemate as a defender, now the attacked can find those moves.

    for qnyone who thinks that endgame struggles are the best part of chess this ruleset mqkes no sense ofc.

    i wonder why there is no such variation yet though.

  6. I got a stalemate with a king horse and queen vs 1 king makes no sense i get a draw.

  7. I kind of wish chess didn't have illegal moves because of checks. If someone doesn't realize their king is in check they should be allowed to blunder their king.

  8. I think there can be two solutions, stalemate being a win or giving the option to forfeit the turn. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous to call it a win when you've literally cornered your enemy to the point where they have nothing they can do. Pretty much every other chess game in the world considers a similar situation a win.

  9. You can win a stale mate by letting your opponent suggest to end the game. Lol, they will concede respectfully but remember it’s a game of patience you walk away knowing better and your opponent non the wiser.

  10. This rule pisses me off. Stalemate = Win and IDC what anyone else says.
    Stupid ass rule.

  11. i think they should allow pass like in korean chess
    if you get stalemated, you are forced to pass, and wait for the opponent to move again

  12. Stalemates are the equivalent of the black knight from The Holy Grail going “right, we’ll call it a draw.” As he sits with no arms or legs

  13. I completely disagree. Stalemate and Zugzwang ideas make chess much more fun, interesting and strategic. If everything is about material, even a single pawn, people would get much more cautious and materialistic which would make chess dull.

  14. Stalemate is basically your king going into a bunker in an era of sword and shield. That's a stalemate🤣

  15. We shouldn't wait for some international community to abolish the stalemate rule. We should just rebel against this rule and agree with other players to change the rule.

  16. Stop allowing resignations and force playing until a decisive result – that would make things more accessible for the viewing public

  17. It does not make sense that one guy struggling with his king gets the same amount of points as the guy who captured his. The person who got stalemated failed to do anything but atleast the stalemater captured the king, it should give a 0.75-0.5 point I think

  18. If this happened, I would have so many wins

  19. I just started playing chess, when I was a kid stalemate was a win because we didn't' know the rules… now that I know the rules stalemate makes no sense to me at all.

  20. I don't like it. So many difficult wins would become easy wins, and a tremendous battle would be over before it had begun.

    Anyhow, if you want to make stalemate a win, then just get rid of check, checkmate, and stalemate, and make the object of the game to capture the king.

  21. As a new player stalemates take the fun away from a what felt like I was going to win 100%

  22. To me it seems illogical that it’s not a win, I don’t understand how why they made up the rules like that

  23. They should make whoever has the most points win

  24. I think the aggressor should be rewarded. If the aggressor forces stalemate on the opponent, that’s a win. But if the opponent moves themselves into a stalemate, draw. I shouldn’t be punished for dominating a game.

  25. But why is satelmate not a win people just force stalemate like u show in 2nd example of pawn and king..The king with pawn has clearly done better saving a pawn against that opponent who only have king..And he wins by forcing stalemate who should have clearly because of his died army…I clearly can't understand why is this even a Draw..The game is to make ur opponent out of moves…The checkmate works the same way(King can't move anywhere) so does the stalemate(King can't go to fair position). This should not be a draw and this person right there saying others idiot is a complete idiot.

  26. Just simply lose everything like an idiot and force stalemate and there u go, u get a draw…Nice idiotic game.

  27. I get why the Queen shouldn’t take the pawn in the Queen and pawn example, but why wouldn’t the pawn ever take the Queen?

  28. I consider the trap of the King a win as do my opponents. If this isnt a thing, I dont play no matter why. To each their own.

  29. It's overwhelmingly intuitive that the "stalemate" should be a loss for the player who can't move, so they must have had a good reason for setting the rule this way instead. But I can't find anyone seriously trying to justify it. Since it's the established rule, I can only find people arguing against it

  30. When Hitler was sitting in his Bunker with nowhere to go. We didn't call WW2 a "draw/stalemate" and let him live. His last move was to afk from life.

  31. each time i gonna win therse a stalemate as im one mouve from winning

  32. The goal of chess, is to capture the opponents king is it not? If you are surrounding a king that’s all alone with nowhere to go, that’s the surrounded by an enemy he’s literally captured. I rest my case. None of what I said can be refuted. Stalemate should be a win for the team forcing it

  33. I don't know anything but this rule is wrong because of there is no option for opponents so if he don't have any option that means he loss a game

  34. It should be like a half-win. Like in boxing their are mixed decisions.

  35. I just played a chess game …. against a player consulting with am engine during the game.. I'm pretty sure but I held my own against a lot of top engine moves.
    I invented a tactic that I have yet to see anyone use. Forced Stalemate.i was one move away from being checkmated and the only piece I could move was my rook. So I checked the king….. then I got the idea well…. I can check again but the king can take me….. I want the king to take me. So I checked he wouldn't take and I just chased the unfair play chess player around until it was a draw because he wouldn't take. .
    My question is….. is that jerk move for me to add it to my repertoire

  36. The problem with making stalemate a win is that the "winning" side can get stalemated too. I just had a game where i stalemated the opponent with just a king against a king and flank pawn. Should i have won the game because the opponent was stalemated even though i had insufficient mating material? Of course not.

    And then there are the situations where players fall into the rook/ queen sacrifice trap and stalemate their opponent that way. In that situation, why should the person who fell into a stalemate trap be rewarded with a win? If they fell for a trap which allows the opponent to claim a draw under the current rules, then they deserve a draw

    Even in situations where one side has a decisive advantage and stalemates the opponent, why should that be a win? They failed to checkmate the opponent, which is the entire objective of the game.

    Stalemate should absolutely be a draw and stay a draw. Otherwise having a one pawn advantage becomes "decisive" and king opposition doesnt matter and endgames become completely boring because the losing side has nothing to play for

  37. Stalemates are the reason I don’t play chess. You were winning the battle and all of a sudden a player can pull out a move where you are forced to make peace with them when they’re fucked when in the real world it is either surrender or death when you’re cornered. Either way, you’re the loser.

  38. I agree with him.
    The original goal of the ancient chess was to capture the king, then moving the king to / leaving it on an attacked square became illegal for fools (which is pointless as it doesn't prevent blunders) and consequently checkmate and stalemate were born.
    So stalemate is just a problem brought by a flawed fix, rather than an essential part of the game.

  39. This N E E D S to be implemented. The current rule is nonsensical. No it wouldn't invalidate old players because we could always just add clauses to return the game to its original state. People who want to play under a classic clause should be enabled but I think most other people would prefer an advantageous stalemate to be a win for the privileged side.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *