Why is stalemate a draw?

Question

It is so difficult to force stalemate and sometimes unintentional too, so why is stalemate a draw?

As the opponent doesn't have a further move, why is it not considered a win?

Answer 1

Stalemate isn't always a draw. Different chess variations have differing rules. I have played games where stalemate can be a draw, or a win for either the player with fewer pieces or for the player in stalemate. I have never come across an instance where the the player causing stalemate is awarded the win, although there has been some discussion of it.

for example:

Larry Kaufman Chess Life Sept. 2009 writes:

"calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents the ultimate zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken"

Perhaps a better phrasing of the question is "Why is Stalemate not a win for the stalemating player?"

Chess tradition dictates that a stalemate cannot result in a win for the stalemating player because it would require a suicidal move from the stalemated player. Moving your king into check is (in most forms of chess) an illegal move. If there are no moves on the board that you are able to make (other then resigning) then in making the stalemating move your opponent has effectively ended the game without a definitive result (capture of the king) and is judged to have not won the game.

Yes tradition does favors the player in stalemate but it has been that way for a very long time. The flipping of that advantage to the stalemating player would greatly change the nature of the endgame (and thus the game of chess and a huge amount of chess theory), which is probably why such arguments have not recieved too much traction.

Perhaps this could be the basis of a varient (if it is not already)?

Answer 2

I remember reading somewhere once which advocated that stalemate should be (could be) 3/4 point. Unfortunately, a quick google search turned up nothing.

The idea is interesting. It seems that you gained more by stalemating your opponent than you gain if the position is completely equal. By similar logic, the stalemated side seems to have not lost as badly as he would have if he had been checkmated.

Answer 3

Simple reason - you cannot kill the king in his current place and the king is dead if he moves. So they maintain status quo till eternity, meaning stalemate.

Answer 4

As Totero notes, changing stalemate in this fashion would drastically change endgame play. Currently, one must learn how to recognize different King/Pawn endings, and how other pieces interact with these endings. Opposite- vs same-square Bishops, Knight/Pawn vs Knight, Rook/Pawn vs Rook, and other basic variations.

Changing stalemate to a win would throw much of that out the window. Who cares whether White or Black has the opposition? Just run that Pawn down the board. Rook/Pawn vs Rook? No worries, just force a trade, and the win is guaranteed. It might not be fair to say that this would trivialize endgame play in reducing it to mindless exchanges from material superiority, but it would be a drastic change.

Put another way, it takes more skill to calculate and remember ending positions than it does to march one's way to a stalemate, and the stalemate rule is intended to recognize that fact.

Answer 5

The objective of the game is to achieve a checkmate. If you leave your opponent no legal moves, then he/she is not in check, is not checkmated, yet can't move. It speaks to the ability of the player to recognize the possibility of stalemate, and avoid it while playing for the checkmate (or opponent resignation).

You haven't achieved the objective of the game, hence, a draw.