This question already has an answer here:

If your opponent eliminates all your options to move, you don't lose in chess, but is regarded an equal to your opponent. Isn't this peculiar? In most games and in real life hunt and war it is a winning strategy to eliminate the opponent's options to move. "Oh, you can't move now, can you, so it's obviously my turn again! (grinning)"

Is there some history to this? Stalemate does make chess much more interesting, but was it kind of invented in order to be so, or how could it have evolved? Is there some Victorian age gentlemanship involved here?

marked as duplicate by user1108, Herb Wolfe, GloriaVictis, Glorfindel, Phonon Aug 24 '17 at 17:19

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 2
    It can be regarded as a form of mini-victory to pull a losing position into a state where you have no moves and draw. When your opponent is winning, it is likely they will win with a score of 1-0. If you out-play your opponent and make it into a stalemate, it is considered that you played better with the pieces you had and you get the draw. – Aric Aug 23 '17 at 11:33
  • 2
    Yup, I don't exactly know about the history, but there is good reason to keep it the way it is, from a "makes games interesting" point of view. Many endgames would become really boring without the possibility of a draw by stalemate. – Annatar Aug 23 '17 at 12:03
  • @Annatar: Could you give some examples for such boring endgames? – user1583209 Aug 23 '17 at 15:45
  • @user1583209 K+Q vs K+P. Depending on the file of the pawn, there are some stalemate threats. Which in turn makes liquidations into such an endgame more strategically significant (both sides will want to "guide" the pawn to desirable files). – Annatar Aug 24 '17 at 6:11

Wikipedia has a history of the stalemate rule. Stalemate being a draw seems to have become more popular in the 15th century, in part due to Lucena

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).

  • What happened to the other half of the stake? – user1583209 Aug 23 '17 at 15:47
  • @user1583209: returned to the other player or placed into a pot in 'winner takes all' style I presume. – user1108 Aug 23 '17 at 15:50
  • If the other player got half, I don't see why this would be "an inferior form of victory". Sounds more like a regular draw in this case. – user1583209 Aug 23 '17 at 17:00
  • 1
    @user1583209 It might mean one half of the amount each player put in, as in the winner got only 3/4 of the total pot. – IllusiveBrian Aug 23 '17 at 19:20

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.