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:
Doesn't this make gambits obsolete… people would be too afraid to get down in the opening because if they can't make up the deficit they will be going into the endgame with only the possibility of a loss. or at best to even things out to a draw. Not sure I am a big fan at this time, I may need convincing
The people who think that the stalemate should =win are just poor souls who stalemate their opponents too often cause thier morons…
Stalemate should be a win, because if you can't move in your turn, the time will run out sooner or later.
these are some of the stupidest explanations I ever heard, If you know you cant checkmate with a pawn and king don't get in that situation, don't trade pieces because you are just like the "idiots" that get stalemate, and of course if you can't beat them easily you need more study, changing the rules is hilarious
I love that stalemate exists. I don’t deserve the win if I can’t figure out how to checkmate my opponent.
I would say yes a stalemate can be a win, but ONLY if it's also legal to capture your own pieces if you so choose.
In XiangQi (Chinese chess) stalemate is a win for stalemater. The whole thing for stalemate is a tie sound so much like a master made up a special rule on the fly, after he just lost the game to an amateur.
I agree with this because i feel the only time a draw should be on the board is when there is just king and king also stalemate should be considered like a tko thats just my opinion.
I was skeptical, but you convinced me. The stalemate positions in theoretical endgames are annoying to learn. I'd be surprised if in 50 years, stalemate isn't a win for the side trapping the king.
Chess has way too many draws, what's the point of playing a game if there's no loser?
👎
I like stalemate leading to a draw since it gives the loosing party something to play for.
But what if you are aiming to stalemate someone a losing position, I don't like that idea that you can lose that way
The draw has always been part of chess, and most people believe that if a game is played correctly by both sides then a draw is the inevitable result. If someone doesn’t like draws in chess, then perhaps they should take up another game in which draws are less frequent or non-existent. It is unreasonable to insist that a game which has given pleasure to millions over a period of centuries should be fundamentally changed merely because someone has a phobia about draws. Still it would be interesting to see how it could change strategies to make stalemates a win.
Stalemate being a draw adds such a richness to the game, and this is perfectly demonstrated by the shown examples in this video. Why would you want to get rid of it? I don't understand. Also, if the disadvantageous side still have fighting chances, that's great!
Stalemate reward player with a draw for those who "lost the game by sacrificing too much" and putting yourself in a position where you cannot move. Also, the other player has won "for having more resources" and trapping the king in a situation where he can't play any Move without losing.
That guy was funny Lol
Stalemate should be a loss. Getting cornered in any versus game shouldn't be rewarded, it makes no logical sense to call it a draw.
Wait. If stalemate you have to wait for your time to end cause you have no moves to make thus you lose via time.
I call a stalemate a pity win.
Stalemate means American invasion of Afghanistan ,
I don’t understand the idea behind the stalemate, “like my whole army is the enemy are moving in from all directions, I have nowhere left to escape that isn’t enemy controlled territory, I guess it’s a draw”. Like what?? I’d understand if both players couldn’t move it’d be a draw
I think the one who stalemates should lose and the one who gets stalemated should win because it's easier for someone with stronger pieces to win than the one with just a king who doesn't have any protection.
Stalemate should continue the game via pass. If no pieces can move at all (even putting the king into check), only then should it be called a stalemate because there are no moves for either side.
Bongcloud should be illegal XD
i feel like kings should be allowed to go onto spaces that are already under attack, or other pieces opening up an angle of attack. it shouldn't be an illegal move if it is a move it could do anyways. like my definition of an illegal move is a move a piece cannot make, such as a castle moving diagonally or a queen moving like a knight. besides no one who is good at the game would be doing it anyways because it is simply a horrendous move that will most definitely be punished unless the other person doesn't realise the mistake. and so what is currently stalemate situations, the king can only move into death = GG to other person.
4:19 why can't the pawn take the queen there?
No.
No it shouldn`t
I thought this video is about stalemate being win for stalemated. That is not the case, ah… Okay… No then. Just No.
5:49 "i dont even know" so calculate maybe?
I played my brother in chess, the score was
Me: 1
Him: 2
1 stalemate I caused by sticking his king still and taking his pawns
And when I offered game 5 he said he won and walked away and it's aggravating
Who ever created stalemate was a wimp
There is a solid reason why stalemate is a draw. The army with superior forces remaining, should also have the wit to win by checkmate, and not just block the opponent King's move. It means the one with the advantage still has to be very careful or thoughtful to secure the win, lest they risk a blunder (stalemate). For people saying this isn't mirrored in real life warfare that chess is meant to represent, it does, throughout history, kings or leaders may have lost the battle, but they escape to re-group and fight again later. In fact, the whole idea of stalemate represents it so well, because it is the losing side's turn to move, and he can't move in the regular way (attack or defend options blocked), he will use that time to come up with ways to escape. Whereas a checkmate is a forced defeat, knife or gun to the head, nowhere to go but die.
People from like 1000 years ago,
He has a point.
GOTTA LOVE STALEMATE
I agree with stalemate should be a win. Perhaps some of the games that are drawn now in the world championship would be wins instead? Just a question: would this rule change increase white’s advantage over black?
In your first example: white has a pawn and his king. Black has only his king. White has advantage. Calling a stalemate a victory is totally insane. Plus, there are players with much less experience on how to checkmate, that doesn't mean they are idiots. Someone drops you in the sea and because you don't know how to swim are you an idiot crying for help?… Jesus!
STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE RULES
This is an absolutely terrible idea. It will cause GMs to play more conservatively because material would be far more important. It will make games more boring NOT more exciting.
being the losing player and then achieving stalemate, way too many people consider it a win not to loose, so they go for stalemate, in my opinion that is a loss in it self. you can also play someone into stale mate by not putting them into checkmate but just lining up so no move is possible for them, on purpose trapping them in a stalemate. Most consider this dumb because the official rules are as of now so that a stalemate is a draw.
in my personal opinion if you get stalemated you lost, if it's your turn and you can do nothing, that is you losing your turn to move and there for you lost (literally lost your turn)
Hate stalemate so god damn bad
Would strategies evolve to try to stalemate early when the board is still crowded? That would lead to unsatisfying and unsportsmanlike endings.
Steelmates are the one thing that makes me not want to play chess anymore.
In a stalemate situation it should default to the person with the most pieces on the board.
A draw is the worst possible outcome in any competition, it shouldn't be more than a 5% but in chess it's about 50% which is absolutely ridiculous.
As someone who's come from a real time strategy background, steelmates are absolutely ridiculous and horrible for the audience.
It rewards being a troll! It doffles my mind how people can think that a 50/50 Point split is acceptable.
It's like being able to float all your buildings in to the corner of the map and refusing to move then declaring draw🤪
If any other sport had a 50% tie rate the spectating crowd with drop immensely, there is a reason why all popular sports have a tiebreaker mechanic.
By pushing this idea you're stunting the growth and popularity of the game.
I agree. If you are the dominant player and you took the other guy's means to win, that means you should win by default.
Imagine police saying to a thief:
Police: You are surrounded and can't scape (move), now surrender.
Thief: joke on you, you have trigger my secret trap card… since I can't move it's a stalemate, so this is a draw. Now let me go home like nothing have happened.
Police: makes sense.
Getting stalemated is a win in losing chess. Why can't it be also in regular chess?
I don't think stalemate should be a draw, but not a victory for the stalemating player either. In my opinion stalemate should be a loss of turn for the stalemated player, so that the stalemated player has to wait until it has at least one possible legal move.