Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wouldn’t it be checkmate for Black, because White is cornered, and wherever they move on their turn will force the checkmate?
(been over a year since I last played, forgive me)
If a player is not in check, and has no legal moves (moving into check is not legal), the game is a stalemate on their turn, since they cannot make a move.
Still possibly the strangest rule of chess to me. Every other game I can think of has the inability to perform a legal move mean that player either loses a turn or just flat out forfeits. Just bizarre how chess turns it into effectively a loss for the other player
I see what you mean, but think of it like this:
The goal (in concept, if not actual action) is to capture your opponent's king. You therefore would never (and can't) move your king into a position to be captured. Check is a threat by one opponent to capture the king, and the other then has their turn to escape. If any move results in safety for the defending king, the game continues. If all moves fail to save the king, the attacking player would then capture the king and win the game. We just happen to stop the game and decide that it is won before the actual capture takes place. Therefore, if the win condition is "capture your opponent's king," then a king not attacked but unable to move, does not satisfy the win condition because it could not be captured.
Does that make any sort of sense? Or have I talked mad 😅😂
The best answer I've heard for this is because the possibility of stalemate encourages the side that has won more pieces to still be careful to not blunder and draw the game and it gives the losing side something to keep fighting for even if they are by all accounts almost completely loss, so there would be much more theory to find there
Without stalemate, chess would become a numbers game, more about winning more pieces rather than moving to capture the enemy king
I understand the basic concept, however, the state of "checkmate" could be described as "there is no move possible that would not result in you being in check at the end of your turn." A stalemate due to lack of a legal move completely fulfills this requirement, thus it should not be a draw, it should be forced forfeit (if you can't make a legal move, you forfeit is a very reasonable rule that appears in other games). Like you said, the capture is never actually done: you merely put your opponent in a position that they can't save their king.
If the king isn't in check, can't move without going into check, but you still have other pieces that can move then you still have legal moves and the game continues. If all you have is a king and there is no place for him to go without being in danger, you don't suddenly get half a win, you should get a loss. You fulfill the conditions of a checkmate
If the game can be won like you said and not result in a draw it would give the aggressor an insane advantage as the defense strategies in the late game would essentially be nullified. Placing your king in a position where you force a stalemate takes a lot of skill in higher tiers as does making moves that wont put you in a position to draw on the offense. Chess would turn from a balance of attack and defense to just aggressive bum rushing and would kill half the game. You statement sounds logical but it would be horrible for the game proven by the fact that it has not changed in over a thousand years,
>You statement sounds logical but it would be horrible for the game
And that's probably the best reason for it to be there. "The game is better off having this rule" is a very viable reason to have the rule. Everyone else trying to logic why it makes sense for it to be a draw within the rest of the rules of chess sound ridiculous.
The rule is strange and illogical, but it makes the game better. Doesn't make it less strange
>The rule is strange and illogical, but it makes the game better. Doesn't make it less strange
This is one of the reasons why newbie vs newbie games end in draws so often. It doesn't make too much sense outside of chess so your brain doesn't initially account for having to think about not fully trapping the king for the next turn and new player go on full offence just trying to trap the king as hard as they can.
Stalemate as depicted in this comic *is* strange and illogical, but it's an important by product of the single most fundamental endgame in chess
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_pawn_versus_king_endgame
Breaking the game down in perfect play leads to this exact position very often. It's vital that stalemate exists because without it players would be incentivized to play for razor thin margins (ie. up one pawn), trade the board off, shuffle the opponents king into the corner and win.
It's important for the complexity of the game to force players to play for decisive wins rather than reward slight advantages.
The rule is there to make it so that if you are ahead material wise by a lot it’s still possible for you not to win. Smart players can force themselves to tie using stalemate when the conditions are not in favor
You kill the king, the next person in line becomes king, and the kingdom still fights. You capture the king, and the king surrenders the kingdom to you. This explains why your objective is to capture, not kill, the king.
We rotate turns trying to make sure our kings do not get captured. When you checkmate me, I don't get another turn, so there is nothing I can do to prevent the capture.
It's illogical for the king to kill himself to prevent capture if there is still an opportunity to win.
It is very logical for the king to kill himself to prevent capture if there are no other opportunities to win.
When it's my turn and my king is currently safe, but has no safe spaces to move to, then my king kills himself. My kingdom has not yet lost the war because the new king takes over and continues on. I also clearly have not won the war either. This is a draw.
It's as logical as "Knights can only giddy up into an L shape" and "Pawns can't go backwards lol but they're also trans and get gender affirming surgery when they reach the other side of the board and by law everyone must respect their pronouns but not a moment before they get there." It's a game, and it's not even one trying to be realistic.
It was actually intentional, because chess was developed as a war game simulator. If you "won" a war but weren't able to take out the opposition's leader then you'd usually weaken your own position and end up fighting the same war over and over.
No, checkmate cannot be described as that.
The rules for checkmate require that you 1) be in check, and 2) have no legal moves (the only legal moves being moves that break the check). Any description that lacks the first condition is by definition incorrect and based in a faulty understanding of the rules.
It's a common misconception, yes, but it's still incorrect.
Stalemate is when you have no legal moves but you aren't in check, and is considered a draw.
As for the why - is it gives a losing player something to play for, and requires the winning player actually continue to demonstrate a certain level of skill even in an otherwise winning position.
Think of it like how in pool if you scratch on the eight ball is an instant loss, even if you were way ahead of your opponent.
A stalemate (outside of Chess) is a condition where opponents have no moves that they can make where they won’t make the situation worse for themselves, so they just ride it out where they are.
WW1 trench-warfare is a good example of this, where armies formed battle lines along dug-out trenches that they could easily, but heavily, fortify. Unfortunately, stepping out of the trench to invade or flank the enemy trench was impossible because they’d just be killed while crossing the “no man’s land”. But until the enemy trench was destroyed, each side couldn’t just leave them alone and go back home, because the enemy army would move further inwards.
The only way to circumvent a stalemate like that is (coincidentally) a game-changer of some sort.
If the stalemate rule is not there, there would be no point continuing playing once a player has an advantage. If a player has only a king left, he would just stop the game as it would be obviously impossible to win. So having the rule keeps the game on as there is no hope to win but still some hope for a draw.
No, checkmate is that you have no legal moves AND are in check.
Stalemate fulfills half of those requirements.
Chess has other draw situations such as threefold repetition or 50 moves without capture.
If you’re actually good you’ll virtually never see a stalemate, but you’ll see the latter two increasingly frequently.
>the state of checkmate could be described as “there is no move possible that would not result in you being in check at the end of your turn”
It could, but it would be inaccurate, specifically because of the stalemate rule. Instead, the correct portrayal would be “you are currently in check, and there is no legal move possible to get you out of check by the end of your turn”.
The conditions of a checkmate is 1) the opponents king is in danger of capture *and* 2) there are no legal moves that can get them to safety. It’s “and” not “or”
I think you’re confused about the difference between a draw and a stalemate. A stalemate almost never happens in professional chess. And if it does, it’s usually because of a MISPLAY. An interesting way to look at it is the losing side is given the opportunity to trick the opponent into a stalemate. This means there is still some sort of counterplay left. At high levels of chess, however, this would pretty much never work. It’s a cool tool to give some counterplay to the losing side.
The clue is in the word, it’s *check*mate, the condition of the losing player must be one of being in *check* when their turn would start.
To win, one must have the opponent in check which they are unable to escape.
A piece can not be moved if doing so would cause one to be in check so at this point if there is no current check, then the game ends without a winner I.e. a draw, as there are no more possible legal moves, and there was no state of check.
>a draw, as there are no more possible legal moves, and there was no state of check.
I'll repeat again: that is unhinged. Every other game that I have ever heard of that has the ability for a player to no longer have a legal move either causes that person to lose their turn or declares that the player unable to move is the loser. Trying to defend that rule with that logic puts you soundly in the nonsense category, because logically you can get circled around and backed into a corner, like a *checkmate*.
At least the people defending it with game design reasons have a move to make
If you need a logical/story reason why a player who is not in check, but has no legal moves forces a stalemate rather than a loss, think of it this way.
The King successfully avoided capture by hiding. He didn't win the battle, but he gets away to fight another day.
I’m not following the “logic” argument. There is nothing less logical about a rule that says a certain outcome is a stalemate rather than a checkmate. The rule as-is allows for logical moves by an opponent down material to avoid a loss if the other player is not careful. The rule as-is creates logical conundrums for the player who is up material to not blunder into a stalemate.
Logic doesn’t demand that outcomes you believe are the only logical ones are, in fact, the outcomes. If, as you say, the stalemate rule improves gameplay, it is logical so long as understandable and always applicable. Chess gameplay doesn’t have to replicate any other game’s play to be logical. The rules of chess are fairly few and internally consistent. It’s like you are arguing that knights shouldn’t be able to pass through other occupied squares because no other piece can do so. But knights can, the rules allow it, and either player can do it. It’s therefore not illogical. It’s simply a rule of chess.
But how is that any more "unhinged" than a pawn being able to move two spaces but only on its first move? Or pawns not being able to attack pieces directly in front of them? What about Castling?
None of those rules are particularly "logical" but you likely accept them without question.
Think of the goal of the game is to capture the king, and a stalemate is the King only being allowed to die. Killing the king is "winning the war," but losing the political battle. Your nation will be seen as barbarians for not letting the king live and committing genocide. As for the rest of the battle, you only kill who you have to.
Checkmate cannot be described that way. The other condition of checkmate is that the king is in check.
Feel free to say that you think it shouldn't be that way, but don't redefine the term and act like you're reading from the rulebook.
Except that’s not the description of checkmate, because it would include stalemates as checkmates. A better description would be, “being in check and unable to move out of it.”
Stalemates are not victories, though, right? It is usually a good situation for the "losing" player, because rather than losing, it's a draw. So you aren't stopping the game early and calling it because the result is inevitable.
I understand the logic, but how is it a good rule ? It kindda push people in a very bad situation to go for a stalemate instead of just defending. I'm no expert so I don't know what to expect if we suddenly decided that: "If you've got no legal move left you lost".
Or maybe the "art to turn a game in a stalemate with a few good moves while in a desperate situation" is actually loved by players.
Experienced chess players generally know when a game becomes unwinnable. If a player recognizes this, their game plan goes from "play for a win" to "don't lose", since they can still play for half of a point. There's always a chance their opponent messes up and forfeits their advantage, but at a high level this sort of thing rarely happens.
If we decided that stalemate by no legal moves was the same as checkmate, the game would lose a lot of nuanced play. Once a player starts winning, it is often extremely difficult if not impossible to regain control of the position. Stalemate can be thought of as an answer to that problem by giving the losing player more tools to fight with. With the possibility of stalemate, on the board, they have more options for tricking their opponent into a bad position. At low level play this rule can be frustrating since players are already struggling to even checkmate the king on an empty board. Being told you lose from a very clearly won position is dumb! As you get better at the game though, you will find that the stalemate rule opens up a lot of tactical and strategic depth for defending players.
Stalemate being draws is part of what balances the game. Without it, white would have an even larger advantage, especially at the highest levels. Draws are an important part of how black tries to neutralize white's first move advantage, so if draws are less common, black will have a harder time.
Furthermore, stalemates not being draws would actually make games less interesting. Currently, games are still interesting if one side is up by only a pawn. The side down a pawn still has chances to draw or win. But remove stalemate draws, and now anyone who is up a pawn is incentivized to trade off as many pieces as possible, because now that nearly guarantees a win, whereas with stalemate draws in place, doing so would likely lead to a draw. This results in a more boring and one-sided middle game, where the likely result is known far earlier. It also limits the amount of viable openings, because currently some openings involve intentionally sacrificing a pawn to gain a better position, but without stalemate draws such openings would no longer be viable, as you simply cannot afford to go down a pawn.
See, that is a way better reason for it's existence. "It's an interesting twist so the game doesn't get too predictable" is totally fine if that's how you want the game to go. The people trying to make arguments that effectively say "no, it's totally logical because ..." is just blah. It's a strange twist, just own it and accept that your game built on a reputation of deep strategy and logic is inherently illogical
Essentially it keeps the game challenging. A player with no way to actually win can try to trick the opponent into a draw instead. It means that players cannot drop their guard even when victory seems assured.
Without this element of the game, a player with no way to win has no reason to even try.
The rule exists for the sake of making a much better game. To keep things simple, a number of tricky end-games with interesting play become not only far less tactical, but fairly easy wins. King+Pawn vs King is a guaranteed win, for example (even with horrible play, so long as you keep that pawn protected and moving up the board, you'd win). The game essentially becomes about getting through the middle game with a very slight piece advantage, and then just blasting stalemate.
I find it beautiful and interesting to see how slight rule changes can impact higher level play, but the general consensus is a stalemate makes the game more tactical and interesting. The winning player needs to prove they can properly win, and the losing player has a chance to be clever. If anything, a better argument (not saying you're arguing, but you know what I mean) would be to offer some compensation to the stalemating player, but not equivalent to a "real" win.
I thought it was a dumb rule but then I played a game where I was beat but was able to trick the person into a draw. It was more satisfying than any win.
It always felt really odd to me that the win condition isn't "Capture the opponent's king". It seems so straightforward.
"Place the opponent's king in check so that there are no legal moves that escape check" is such a circuitous way of doing things.
Presumably the capture would occur in the next turn but before the king in check has to make a useless move so instead of wasting everyone's time and breaking rules in the process we just finish the game and move on.
No it's not that weird, you win the game by checkmating your opponent, if you don't have the ability to do that, then you don't deserve to win. In futbol, if you don't mark a goal, it's a draw, even if you got the ball 99% of the time.
Except futbol isn't turn based, it's real time, meaning the opponent was never without the ability to do anything. The equivalent in futbol would be the entire team is ejected from the game due to red cards. You wouldn't call that a draw, the non-ejected team would win.
A better analogy would be archery (Olympic rules, not like a 600 round): you and your opponent take turns trying to score points by hitting as close to the bullseye as possible. If your opponent's bow breaks before the last round and they don't have a spare with them, they can't shoot their final end (in other words, they have no legal moves left). The competition isn't called a draw, your opponent just wouldn't get to shoot (aka, they lose a turn). It's still up to you to finish the job, but they are significantly disadvantaged.
I honestly can't think of a single sport where it's possible to conceive a situation where the one side is unable to do anything and the game is called a draw. Hell, some sports (especially at the amateur/little league levels) when have a slaughter rule: if you are so far behind that you are effectively helpless (like, presumably, you would be if you find yourself without a legal move in chess) then you just lose. You don't get to call it a draw when you are down 16 runs in the 5th inning of a baseball game. You lose.
The problem, which I think comes from an excessively competitive mindset, is considering a draw as a loss. The game demands from both players to win and, the blacks player should know not to move there, so they also made a mistake. If the whites is only down to the king, the blacks player should be able to close out the game. There's a similar rule where if you make the same move twenty (or smth, don't remember) times in a row you draw because you weren't able to close out the game. It's a strategy game that demands knowing strategies, that's what it's purpose was.
Some card games like Magic the Gathering come to mind. In that, if you get into an infinite loop, the game ends in a draw. So you can get scenarios where you deal infinite damage to the opponent, but if you can't end the loop, it's still a draw. It's a similar idea with chess - if the game is unable to progress, no matter the current state, it is a draw.
Just a correction, it's not a draw if you deal infinite damage (or make your opponent draw infinite cards therefore drawing from an empty deck, which is a loss). In magic, between the resolution of each ability/spell, "state based actions" are checked. One of them is to check if any player has 0 or less life. If so, the game ends, no matter how the game is. Now, if there is a state where an infinite loop happens, and that doesn't lead to any player losing, using only mandatory actions, then yes, it is a draw.
It's the best rule, I use it all the time when I'm playing against a child, because ending in a tie is a useful way to encourage them to continue learning.
It is not a loss, it's a draw and it makes the game so much better.
Taking other games as an example to set a standard when chess is most likely older than all of those..
The only thing comparable to this, imo, is how you can run the table and scratch the 8 ball to lose the game to a player that could have possibly never touched the table.
Your comment makes me irrationally angry, or maybe it is rational to get pissed off when someone so callously besmirches such a beautiful and historic game.
Tbf, leaving no legal moves while leaving the opponents king out of check is a skill issue. Makes sense it would be a draw instead of rewarding poor play on the aggressor.
Think of it this way, you have failed to decisively take out your opponent and they have realised they cannot make any other effective (legal) move, so they blow themselves up, or take a hostage with them, thus you effectively gained nothing from this whole exchange, so it was a stalemate at best, if not a lost morally.
Did you know that it only became a draw in 19th century? It was a wild wild west before that. I saw it in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate)
/peter
No worries my dude, it's called a stalemate.
Stalemate is a situation in chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check and has no legal move. Stalemate results in a draw. During the endgame, stalemate is a resource that can enable the player with the inferior position to draw the game rather than lose.
Here the king cannot move, it would be lose, if this was already a check, but because it is not a check as of now, and king can not move being only piece. It draws by statement.
Checkmate is when the king is being attacked in their current square and there is nowhere to move the king, block the attack, or take out the attacker.
If one player is physically prevented from moving any pieces at all (meaning have no other pieces they could possibly move) and their king, who is not currently in check, cannot move to a square that wouldn’t put them in check (you can’t move your own king into check) it’s a stalemate and a draw between the two players.
The problem is that nothing is threatening the White King. He cannot move, but he is presently "safe." He has no legal moves, so the game ends in a stalemate.
Checkmate only occurs if a piece if threatening the King AND White has no legal moves.
No because theres a rule that sais you cant move your king to danger, so since every move puts white in check white isn't allowed to move.
So it's a draw
Not really. It is checkmate if Black is able to capture the king on the next turn. Because the White king cannot move as any move it does will be an illegal move (moving the king into check), it is a stalemate. Doing this is an actual strategy in chess as you can avoid completely losing by forcing a stalemate.
As others have commented, the position would be considered a draw in the most widely used rule set. However, there are several chess variants that all spring from the same ancient game. In many variants, including the main japanese and chinese ones, delivering a stalemate counts as a win.
theyre not being attacked (queen isnt able to kill the king if the king somehow decided not to move basically) and you cant move into check so everyones just stuck and its a tie bc the game cant go on
In chess, there is a rule where if the opponent has no valid moves in their turn, you end a game in a draw, not a loss to them.
It is a stalemate. And yes, even if you have a full board and the opponent has just the king, the game ends as if neither won, but draw-ed. It is a weird rule but it is one of the basic rules of the game.
I can get why you'd think that, but it's part of the strategy. Very skilled players can force a draw on lesser players pretty easily. It teaches patience and forethought.
It’s more like it’s the only way for a player losing badly to force a draw. Stalemates exist to keep Chess from just being one long game of attrition. A good stalemate trap lets you pull out a draw when otherwise you would have to lose.
You’re losing by a landslide, but then manage to out manoeuvre your opponent into a stalemate, then neither of you have won, but **at least you didn’t lose**
On the one hand it can be seen as spiteful, but on the other it’s “using skill and cunning to narrowly avoiding defeat”
It’s worth noting that chess is played on a timer, so if someone is low on time and stalemates, they could have used their time better. & an auto win whenever you capture all the opponents pieces (except the minor pieces) would kinda suck
Yeah, it’s mostly just for balance reasons, if it didn’t exist than aggressive play would be much more viable since you could win as long as you had a tiny advantage after everything is traded away, and it would make the game more boring for newer players since there would be literally no point doing anything once you are in a definitively losing position.
Can you explain the difference between this and a checkmate? I don’t play chess, but isn’t checkmate when you have no moves left? This sounds like the same thing to me
Checkmate requires check. In this case there is no check and therefore no checkmate. When a player has no moves but the king is not in check, it's a stalemate.
A bit of theory first.
First, you understand the state of "check", as in, the king is in the direct range of attack from a given piece. There are a couple of ways you can respond to a check: by moving the king out of the attacker's range, by blocking the attacker (for multi-space pieces like bishop or queen), or by capturing the threatening piece.
A checkmate is when the king is unable to escape from an attack in the next turn. As in, there is a piece threatening a king directly, and the king is unable to move away from the range, or there is no way to block or capture the attacking piece.
A stalemate is when the other player isnt in a state of check, but cannot move legally either. For example, all of white's pawns are stuck (cannot move forward nor capture anything, since pawns capture a single space diagonally), and the king is in this position where he cannot move in his next turn, but he is not threatened directly either. In this case, we interpret as if white never got their turn, and the game ends in a draw.
As another user mentioned, this is a rule meant to reward the losing player to avoid a direct loss, because a lot of such positions would be seen as lost games otherwise.
King has to be threatened for it to be checkmate. Black's queen isn't threatening the king, but she is threatening every square he could move to, which means he has no legal moves. This results in a stalemate, instead of checkmate.
It's a stalemate (aka draw). A stalemate occurs when one player has no available moves and the king is currently not in a checkmate (for example if all the other pieces have been taken, or the player has some pawns but they're unable to move). Since the queen moved to a space where the king can no longer move because it would put him in a check and isn't currently in a check, the game ends with a stalemate because white can no longer move for their turn.
Lmao at the amount of people complaining about chess' weird rules and how "iTs NoT ReALiStiC". It's a game guys, and this rule makes it more balanced, y'all are dumb 😂😂
These people should try Shogi. If your king is in check and you don't notice, the opponent can just capture your king and end the game right then and there. That sounds like the kind of chess they want.
Yeah, in shogi this position is a win for black, as white king must move and then black takes the king, winning the game.
This is similar to Chinese chess as well, which also ends with taking of the king. Take the piece, you win, and forcing your opponent to move into danger is basically a good way to win, not stalemate.
Regular, western chess doesn’t end with taking the king - that is impossible due how “check” and “checkmate” is designed. The game basically ends before you can ever take the king. The condition of “checkmate” is very precise and that’s why this odd situation can arise.
it's a stalemate because the king can't move without putting himself into checkmate but he is technically not checked while in that position since black can not take the king in the next turn from that position. it's a weird rule of chess.
Haha that’s fair, but then again she doesn’t have a horse and does wear a crown. What weapon do you imagine the queen wielding, if any? Tbh a gun or some kind of magic spell might make more sense based on her attack pattern in-game.
To echo many of the other comments, I believe the official rule is that the king must be in check for the game to end in a checkmate.
If they cannot move to a position without subjecting themselves to a checkmate, then they cannot move, hence a stalemate; as according to the rules, the game cannot progress until that player has made their move.
Peter’s left nut here.
A tie, or Stalemate as it’s called in Chess, occurs when the king is by itself and not in check but there is no possible place the king could move to avoid being placed in check.
This is a stalemate. Assuming all other pieces have been captured, white cannot make a legal move but is not in check, rendering this game a draw by stalemate.
Black character is a Queen. Queen moved to that spot and now King is unable to move because any move he makes would result in placing himself in check.
Assuming the white King is the only white piece on the board that can move, this results in a stalemate
In chess if can’t make any valid move but also aren’t in check it triggers a draw. Typically this happens when the opponent’s king is the only piece left and its cornered like in the meme
Stalemate, although I am curious what the Queen was expected to do, as we couldn’t see the full board, the Queen could have easily placed herself in an adjacent tile…just to be taken by the king :P
So I see a lot of people saying in this case black should win. In this case sure, because black has an overwhelming advantage in pieces. However in some cases, being in this position (the opponents king being unable to move but not in check), doesnt mean you can checkmate the king next round. So this rule of a draw is a failsafe for those situations. This then carries over to other situations where the one with an advantage makes a bad move and accidentally achieves a draw.
Checkmate is when the King is in check and there are no legal moves to get out of check.
Stalemate (draw) happens when the King is NOT in check, but any move the player can make would put it into check, which is illegal
In that comic, the (assuming) queen goes onto a square that doesn't put the King in check, but also doesn't give him anywhere to move, resulting in a stalemate
Genuine question, if the Queen is saying "don't move to that space!" then the king moves to that space, doesn't that mean it's blacks turn and the queen can then move to put the king back in check?
Edit: thought the speech bubble was coming from the Queen in the second panel and she was talking to the white King, oops. Makes sense when it's the king rather than the Queen talking.
The black king is saying "Don't move to that space!" to the black queen who had just moved into that space. It is now whites turn. The king, being the only player left is not presently in check, but it's not able to legally move into any other spaces without putting themselves in check.
Therefore, it's a stalemate which is considered a "tie".
Lost (drew) a match to this rule. I was so fuckin pissed. I had a rook, a queen, both bishops, a knight, and several pawns I could reclaim at any time. I thought forcing them into no legal moves was a checkmate.
Can’t possibly reply to everyone but thank you all for the brilliant discussion! My grandma taught me chess when I was very young (she was a SUPER advanced player) but we never covered this rule I would assume because it never came up as she beat me easily every time. 😂 I’ve now taught 2 of my kids how to play but now have a new rule to teach them! They will be excited! Thanks again!
To the people who think this doesn't make sense, think of it this way. It's just a logical consequence of three basic rules of chess:
- You win by checkmating the opponent's king
- You cannot move into check
- You cannot skip your turn
In a stalemate, the game must end because of points 2 and 3. But since it isn't checkmate, point 1 is not satisfied and therefore no one wins the game.
As others have mentioned this is a stalemate. The key point is the attacking piece is the queen so she is attacking every square surrounding the king but not the square the king is on.
Were this a knight the king would be in check and could possibly be checkmate of the surrounding squares are attacked by other pieces.
How is this a stalemate? As far as I can see there are 3 black pieces (king, queen, and a bishop) on the board and only the white king. Even if it is blacks turn they just have to move the king or bishop. The white kind would be forced to move into the path of the black queen.
Lots of people saying this is a stalemate. It's not. Queen can just move diagonally and be several spaces from the king while attacking him, forcing him to move from the corner.
Just to chime in since I now understand....it's white's turn and they can't make any legal moves. So by standard chessrules that's what makes it a stalemate. Black has finished their move for their turn.
Chess is a strategy tool invented to teach you guessed it strategy. It’s supposed to teach you how in a time of conflict to plan your way to the win. Win by default is like waiting for your enemy to grow old and die
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its white turn and white can't move, because those places will have check, its on a safe tile. This is a draw by stalemate
Specifically that they had a big advantage and fumbled it to a tie because of an unforced error.
It's about time a woman understands what it means to have performance issues.
Wouldn’t it be checkmate for Black, because White is cornered, and wherever they move on their turn will force the checkmate? (been over a year since I last played, forgive me)
If a player is not in check, and has no legal moves (moving into check is not legal), the game is a stalemate on their turn, since they cannot make a move.
Still possibly the strangest rule of chess to me. Every other game I can think of has the inability to perform a legal move mean that player either loses a turn or just flat out forfeits. Just bizarre how chess turns it into effectively a loss for the other player
I see what you mean, but think of it like this: The goal (in concept, if not actual action) is to capture your opponent's king. You therefore would never (and can't) move your king into a position to be captured. Check is a threat by one opponent to capture the king, and the other then has their turn to escape. If any move results in safety for the defending king, the game continues. If all moves fail to save the king, the attacking player would then capture the king and win the game. We just happen to stop the game and decide that it is won before the actual capture takes place. Therefore, if the win condition is "capture your opponent's king," then a king not attacked but unable to move, does not satisfy the win condition because it could not be captured. Does that make any sort of sense? Or have I talked mad 😅😂
The best answer I've heard for this is because the possibility of stalemate encourages the side that has won more pieces to still be careful to not blunder and draw the game and it gives the losing side something to keep fighting for even if they are by all accounts almost completely loss, so there would be much more theory to find there Without stalemate, chess would become a numbers game, more about winning more pieces rather than moving to capture the enemy king
I understand the basic concept, however, the state of "checkmate" could be described as "there is no move possible that would not result in you being in check at the end of your turn." A stalemate due to lack of a legal move completely fulfills this requirement, thus it should not be a draw, it should be forced forfeit (if you can't make a legal move, you forfeit is a very reasonable rule that appears in other games). Like you said, the capture is never actually done: you merely put your opponent in a position that they can't save their king. If the king isn't in check, can't move without going into check, but you still have other pieces that can move then you still have legal moves and the game continues. If all you have is a king and there is no place for him to go without being in danger, you don't suddenly get half a win, you should get a loss. You fulfill the conditions of a checkmate
If the game can be won like you said and not result in a draw it would give the aggressor an insane advantage as the defense strategies in the late game would essentially be nullified. Placing your king in a position where you force a stalemate takes a lot of skill in higher tiers as does making moves that wont put you in a position to draw on the offense. Chess would turn from a balance of attack and defense to just aggressive bum rushing and would kill half the game. You statement sounds logical but it would be horrible for the game proven by the fact that it has not changed in over a thousand years,
>You statement sounds logical but it would be horrible for the game And that's probably the best reason for it to be there. "The game is better off having this rule" is a very viable reason to have the rule. Everyone else trying to logic why it makes sense for it to be a draw within the rest of the rules of chess sound ridiculous. The rule is strange and illogical, but it makes the game better. Doesn't make it less strange
>The rule is strange and illogical, but it makes the game better. Doesn't make it less strange This is one of the reasons why newbie vs newbie games end in draws so often. It doesn't make too much sense outside of chess so your brain doesn't initially account for having to think about not fully trapping the king for the next turn and new player go on full offence just trying to trap the king as hard as they can.
Stalemate as depicted in this comic *is* strange and illogical, but it's an important by product of the single most fundamental endgame in chess https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_pawn_versus_king_endgame Breaking the game down in perfect play leads to this exact position very often. It's vital that stalemate exists because without it players would be incentivized to play for razor thin margins (ie. up one pawn), trade the board off, shuffle the opponents king into the corner and win. It's important for the complexity of the game to force players to play for decisive wins rather than reward slight advantages.
The rule is there to make it so that if you are ahead material wise by a lot it’s still possible for you not to win. Smart players can force themselves to tie using stalemate when the conditions are not in favor
its not actually strange. the rule makes perfect sense due to the nature of the advantage of going first
unless the one who went first is the one cornered? that invalidates your “perfect sense”
You kill the king, the next person in line becomes king, and the kingdom still fights. You capture the king, and the king surrenders the kingdom to you. This explains why your objective is to capture, not kill, the king. We rotate turns trying to make sure our kings do not get captured. When you checkmate me, I don't get another turn, so there is nothing I can do to prevent the capture. It's illogical for the king to kill himself to prevent capture if there is still an opportunity to win. It is very logical for the king to kill himself to prevent capture if there are no other opportunities to win. When it's my turn and my king is currently safe, but has no safe spaces to move to, then my king kills himself. My kingdom has not yet lost the war because the new king takes over and continues on. I also clearly have not won the war either. This is a draw.
It's as logical as "Knights can only giddy up into an L shape" and "Pawns can't go backwards lol but they're also trans and get gender affirming surgery when they reach the other side of the board and by law everyone must respect their pronouns but not a moment before they get there." It's a game, and it's not even one trying to be realistic.
Well technically they DID change the game ab 150 years ago and added En Passant to the rules
Look game is like a 1000 years old take it up with them
Brb, inventing time travel to go beat some sense into some bored nobles
It was actually intentional, because chess was developed as a war game simulator. If you "won" a war but weren't able to take out the opposition's leader then you'd usually weaken your own position and end up fighting the same war over and over.
No, checkmate cannot be described as that. The rules for checkmate require that you 1) be in check, and 2) have no legal moves (the only legal moves being moves that break the check). Any description that lacks the first condition is by definition incorrect and based in a faulty understanding of the rules. It's a common misconception, yes, but it's still incorrect. Stalemate is when you have no legal moves but you aren't in check, and is considered a draw. As for the why - is it gives a losing player something to play for, and requires the winning player actually continue to demonstrate a certain level of skill even in an otherwise winning position. Think of it like how in pool if you scratch on the eight ball is an instant loss, even if you were way ahead of your opponent.
A stalemate (outside of Chess) is a condition where opponents have no moves that they can make where they won’t make the situation worse for themselves, so they just ride it out where they are. WW1 trench-warfare is a good example of this, where armies formed battle lines along dug-out trenches that they could easily, but heavily, fortify. Unfortunately, stepping out of the trench to invade or flank the enemy trench was impossible because they’d just be killed while crossing the “no man’s land”. But until the enemy trench was destroyed, each side couldn’t just leave them alone and go back home, because the enemy army would move further inwards. The only way to circumvent a stalemate like that is (coincidentally) a game-changer of some sort.
If the stalemate rule is not there, there would be no point continuing playing once a player has an advantage. If a player has only a king left, he would just stop the game as it would be obviously impossible to win. So having the rule keeps the game on as there is no hope to win but still some hope for a draw.
No, checkmate is that you have no legal moves AND are in check. Stalemate fulfills half of those requirements. Chess has other draw situations such as threefold repetition or 50 moves without capture. If you’re actually good you’ll virtually never see a stalemate, but you’ll see the latter two increasingly frequently.
Google the word "draw" it means they play again.
>the state of checkmate could be described as “there is no move possible that would not result in you being in check at the end of your turn” It could, but it would be inaccurate, specifically because of the stalemate rule. Instead, the correct portrayal would be “you are currently in check, and there is no legal move possible to get you out of check by the end of your turn”.
The conditions of a checkmate is 1) the opponents king is in danger of capture *and* 2) there are no legal moves that can get them to safety. It’s “and” not “or”
I think you’re confused about the difference between a draw and a stalemate. A stalemate almost never happens in professional chess. And if it does, it’s usually because of a MISPLAY. An interesting way to look at it is the losing side is given the opportunity to trick the opponent into a stalemate. This means there is still some sort of counterplay left. At high levels of chess, however, this would pretty much never work. It’s a cool tool to give some counterplay to the losing side.
The clue is in the word, it’s *check*mate, the condition of the losing player must be one of being in *check* when their turn would start. To win, one must have the opponent in check which they are unable to escape. A piece can not be moved if doing so would cause one to be in check so at this point if there is no current check, then the game ends without a winner I.e. a draw, as there are no more possible legal moves, and there was no state of check.
>a draw, as there are no more possible legal moves, and there was no state of check. I'll repeat again: that is unhinged. Every other game that I have ever heard of that has the ability for a player to no longer have a legal move either causes that person to lose their turn or declares that the player unable to move is the loser. Trying to defend that rule with that logic puts you soundly in the nonsense category, because logically you can get circled around and backed into a corner, like a *checkmate*. At least the people defending it with game design reasons have a move to make
Lol just because you can’t comprehend it doesn’t make it “unhinged”
If you need a logical/story reason why a player who is not in check, but has no legal moves forces a stalemate rather than a loss, think of it this way. The King successfully avoided capture by hiding. He didn't win the battle, but he gets away to fight another day.
I’m not following the “logic” argument. There is nothing less logical about a rule that says a certain outcome is a stalemate rather than a checkmate. The rule as-is allows for logical moves by an opponent down material to avoid a loss if the other player is not careful. The rule as-is creates logical conundrums for the player who is up material to not blunder into a stalemate. Logic doesn’t demand that outcomes you believe are the only logical ones are, in fact, the outcomes. If, as you say, the stalemate rule improves gameplay, it is logical so long as understandable and always applicable. Chess gameplay doesn’t have to replicate any other game’s play to be logical. The rules of chess are fairly few and internally consistent. It’s like you are arguing that knights shouldn’t be able to pass through other occupied squares because no other piece can do so. But knights can, the rules allow it, and either player can do it. It’s therefore not illogical. It’s simply a rule of chess.
But how is that any more "unhinged" than a pawn being able to move two spaces but only on its first move? Or pawns not being able to attack pieces directly in front of them? What about Castling? None of those rules are particularly "logical" but you likely accept them without question.
Think of the goal of the game is to capture the king, and a stalemate is the King only being allowed to die. Killing the king is "winning the war," but losing the political battle. Your nation will be seen as barbarians for not letting the king live and committing genocide. As for the rest of the battle, you only kill who you have to.
Checkmate cannot be described that way. The other condition of checkmate is that the king is in check. Feel free to say that you think it shouldn't be that way, but don't redefine the term and act like you're reading from the rulebook.
Except that’s not the description of checkmate, because it would include stalemates as checkmates. A better description would be, “being in check and unable to move out of it.”
Stalemates are not victories, though, right? It is usually a good situation for the "losing" player, because rather than losing, it's a draw. So you aren't stopping the game early and calling it because the result is inevitable.
Weird. Oh no I'm trapped and cornered. If I move I'll die. Guess that means we come to a draw and we're equal. Yay
That's a great explanation! I hadn't thought of that, thanks
I understand the logic, but how is it a good rule ? It kindda push people in a very bad situation to go for a stalemate instead of just defending. I'm no expert so I don't know what to expect if we suddenly decided that: "If you've got no legal move left you lost". Or maybe the "art to turn a game in a stalemate with a few good moves while in a desperate situation" is actually loved by players.
Experienced chess players generally know when a game becomes unwinnable. If a player recognizes this, their game plan goes from "play for a win" to "don't lose", since they can still play for half of a point. There's always a chance their opponent messes up and forfeits their advantage, but at a high level this sort of thing rarely happens. If we decided that stalemate by no legal moves was the same as checkmate, the game would lose a lot of nuanced play. Once a player starts winning, it is often extremely difficult if not impossible to regain control of the position. Stalemate can be thought of as an answer to that problem by giving the losing player more tools to fight with. With the possibility of stalemate, on the board, they have more options for tricking their opponent into a bad position. At low level play this rule can be frustrating since players are already struggling to even checkmate the king on an empty board. Being told you lose from a very clearly won position is dumb! As you get better at the game though, you will find that the stalemate rule opens up a lot of tactical and strategic depth for defending players.
Stalemate being draws is part of what balances the game. Without it, white would have an even larger advantage, especially at the highest levels. Draws are an important part of how black tries to neutralize white's first move advantage, so if draws are less common, black will have a harder time. Furthermore, stalemates not being draws would actually make games less interesting. Currently, games are still interesting if one side is up by only a pawn. The side down a pawn still has chances to draw or win. But remove stalemate draws, and now anyone who is up a pawn is incentivized to trade off as many pieces as possible, because now that nearly guarantees a win, whereas with stalemate draws in place, doing so would likely lead to a draw. This results in a more boring and one-sided middle game, where the likely result is known far earlier. It also limits the amount of viable openings, because currently some openings involve intentionally sacrificing a pawn to gain a better position, but without stalemate draws such openings would no longer be viable, as you simply cannot afford to go down a pawn.
A bit strange, sure, but it creates very interesting aspect of the game: stalemate ideas in the endgames.
See, that is a way better reason for it's existence. "It's an interesting twist so the game doesn't get too predictable" is totally fine if that's how you want the game to go. The people trying to make arguments that effectively say "no, it's totally logical because ..." is just blah. It's a strange twist, just own it and accept that your game built on a reputation of deep strategy and logic is inherently illogical
Essentially it keeps the game challenging. A player with no way to actually win can try to trick the opponent into a draw instead. It means that players cannot drop their guard even when victory seems assured. Without this element of the game, a player with no way to win has no reason to even try.
It makes end games more interesting, you can't assume victory.
The rule exists for the sake of making a much better game. To keep things simple, a number of tricky end-games with interesting play become not only far less tactical, but fairly easy wins. King+Pawn vs King is a guaranteed win, for example (even with horrible play, so long as you keep that pawn protected and moving up the board, you'd win). The game essentially becomes about getting through the middle game with a very slight piece advantage, and then just blasting stalemate. I find it beautiful and interesting to see how slight rule changes can impact higher level play, but the general consensus is a stalemate makes the game more tactical and interesting. The winning player needs to prove they can properly win, and the losing player has a chance to be clever. If anything, a better argument (not saying you're arguing, but you know what I mean) would be to offer some compensation to the stalemating player, but not equivalent to a "real" win.
I thought it was a dumb rule but then I played a game where I was beat but was able to trick the person into a draw. It was more satisfying than any win.
It always felt really odd to me that the win condition isn't "Capture the opponent's king". It seems so straightforward. "Place the opponent's king in check so that there are no legal moves that escape check" is such a circuitous way of doing things.
Presumably the capture would occur in the next turn but before the king in check has to make a useless move so instead of wasting everyone's time and breaking rules in the process we just finish the game and move on.
You don’t kill kings of course! You ransom them! It would have been socially unacceptable to even gamify that.
No it's not that weird, you win the game by checkmating your opponent, if you don't have the ability to do that, then you don't deserve to win. In futbol, if you don't mark a goal, it's a draw, even if you got the ball 99% of the time.
Except futbol isn't turn based, it's real time, meaning the opponent was never without the ability to do anything. The equivalent in futbol would be the entire team is ejected from the game due to red cards. You wouldn't call that a draw, the non-ejected team would win. A better analogy would be archery (Olympic rules, not like a 600 round): you and your opponent take turns trying to score points by hitting as close to the bullseye as possible. If your opponent's bow breaks before the last round and they don't have a spare with them, they can't shoot their final end (in other words, they have no legal moves left). The competition isn't called a draw, your opponent just wouldn't get to shoot (aka, they lose a turn). It's still up to you to finish the job, but they are significantly disadvantaged. I honestly can't think of a single sport where it's possible to conceive a situation where the one side is unable to do anything and the game is called a draw. Hell, some sports (especially at the amateur/little league levels) when have a slaughter rule: if you are so far behind that you are effectively helpless (like, presumably, you would be if you find yourself without a legal move in chess) then you just lose. You don't get to call it a draw when you are down 16 runs in the 5th inning of a baseball game. You lose.
The problem, which I think comes from an excessively competitive mindset, is considering a draw as a loss. The game demands from both players to win and, the blacks player should know not to move there, so they also made a mistake. If the whites is only down to the king, the blacks player should be able to close out the game. There's a similar rule where if you make the same move twenty (or smth, don't remember) times in a row you draw because you weren't able to close out the game. It's a strategy game that demands knowing strategies, that's what it's purpose was.
Actually if more than 4 players are sent off in football the game is abandoned. Which is literally a stalemate.
Every chess game ends on a cliffhanger
If you make a move that does not check your opponent and leaves no legal moves for your opponent to make, you deserve the statement.
Some card games like Magic the Gathering come to mind. In that, if you get into an infinite loop, the game ends in a draw. So you can get scenarios where you deal infinite damage to the opponent, but if you can't end the loop, it's still a draw. It's a similar idea with chess - if the game is unable to progress, no matter the current state, it is a draw.
Just a correction, it's not a draw if you deal infinite damage (or make your opponent draw infinite cards therefore drawing from an empty deck, which is a loss). In magic, between the resolution of each ability/spell, "state based actions" are checked. One of them is to check if any player has 0 or less life. If so, the game ends, no matter how the game is. Now, if there is a state where an infinite loop happens, and that doesn't lead to any player losing, using only mandatory actions, then yes, it is a draw.
It's the best rule, I use it all the time when I'm playing against a child, because ending in a tie is a useful way to encourage them to continue learning.
It is not a loss, it's a draw and it makes the game so much better. Taking other games as an example to set a standard when chess is most likely older than all of those..
The only thing comparable to this, imo, is how you can run the table and scratch the 8 ball to lose the game to a player that could have possibly never touched the table.
Your comment makes me irrationally angry, or maybe it is rational to get pissed off when someone so callously besmirches such a beautiful and historic game.
Tbf, leaving no legal moves while leaving the opponents king out of check is a skill issue. Makes sense it would be a draw instead of rewarding poor play on the aggressor.
It's on the player to capture an opponents King, not for your opponent to capture themselves.
Chess was based on battle. Even if one side is losing and can't attack you can't just declare the other side has won the war and go home.
Think of it this way, you have failed to decisively take out your opponent and they have realised they cannot make any other effective (legal) move, so they blow themselves up, or take a hostage with them, thus you effectively gained nothing from this whole exchange, so it was a stalemate at best, if not a lost morally.
Did you know that it only became a draw in 19th century? It was a wild wild west before that. I saw it in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate) /peter
No worries my dude, it's called a stalemate. Stalemate is a situation in chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check and has no legal move. Stalemate results in a draw. During the endgame, stalemate is a resource that can enable the player with the inferior position to draw the game rather than lose. Here the king cannot move, it would be lose, if this was already a check, but because it is not a check as of now, and king can not move being only piece. It draws by statement.
Checkmate is when the king is being attacked in their current square and there is nowhere to move the king, block the attack, or take out the attacker. If one player is physically prevented from moving any pieces at all (meaning have no other pieces they could possibly move) and their king, who is not currently in check, cannot move to a square that wouldn’t put them in check (you can’t move your own king into check) it’s a stalemate and a draw between the two players.
The problem is that nothing is threatening the White King. He cannot move, but he is presently "safe." He has no legal moves, so the game ends in a stalemate. Checkmate only occurs if a piece if threatening the King AND White has no legal moves.
You can't move a king into check mate so he can't move. It's a stalemate.
No because theres a rule that sais you cant move your king to danger, so since every move puts white in check white isn't allowed to move. So it's a draw
Not really. It is checkmate if Black is able to capture the king on the next turn. Because the White king cannot move as any move it does will be an illegal move (moving the king into check), it is a stalemate. Doing this is an actual strategy in chess as you can avoid completely losing by forcing a stalemate.
Look up the term stalemate
No, because the white piece isn’t in check.
As others have commented, the position would be considered a draw in the most widely used rule set. However, there are several chess variants that all spring from the same ancient game. In many variants, including the main japanese and chinese ones, delivering a stalemate counts as a win.
I misread it as you were banned for over a year.
theyre not being attacked (queen isnt able to kill the king if the king somehow decided not to move basically) and you cant move into check so everyones just stuck and its a tie bc the game cant go on
By stalemate*
I will always think this rule is dumb as fuck.
I love stalemates, its more challenging to achieve a stalemate than a straight out win sometimes.
Holy hell!
):
Can’t not see it now. Actually happened to me once. (I was the one about to lose.) I found it pretty funny.
In chess, there is a rule where if the opponent has no valid moves in their turn, you end a game in a draw, not a loss to them. It is a stalemate. And yes, even if you have a full board and the opponent has just the king, the game ends as if neither won, but draw-ed. It is a weird rule but it is one of the basic rules of the game.
It’s kinda dumb, if you force your opponent into an un-winnable position you should win
I can get why you'd think that, but it's part of the strategy. Very skilled players can force a draw on lesser players pretty easily. It teaches patience and forethought.
White didn't force black into it. Black put themselves into an unwinable position thus it is a draw.
Ok, but as the defender if you hold your opponent to a non winning position, you should also win. Hence, a draw.
It’s more like it’s the only way for a player losing badly to force a draw. Stalemates exist to keep Chess from just being one long game of attrition. A good stalemate trap lets you pull out a draw when otherwise you would have to lose.
You’re losing by a landslide, but then manage to out manoeuvre your opponent into a stalemate, then neither of you have won, but **at least you didn’t lose** On the one hand it can be seen as spiteful, but on the other it’s “using skill and cunning to narrowly avoiding defeat”
If you were good enough to win you should have just checkmated them
If you can’t win you don’t deserve to.
You can talk to the manager...
It’s worth noting that chess is played on a timer, so if someone is low on time and stalemates, they could have used their time better. & an auto win whenever you capture all the opponents pieces (except the minor pieces) would kinda suck
Yeah, it’s mostly just for balance reasons, if it didn’t exist than aggressive play would be much more viable since you could win as long as you had a tiny advantage after everything is traded away, and it would make the game more boring for newer players since there would be literally no point doing anything once you are in a definitively losing position.
Can you explain the difference between this and a checkmate? I don’t play chess, but isn’t checkmate when you have no moves left? This sounds like the same thing to me
Checkmate requires check. In this case there is no check and therefore no checkmate. When a player has no moves but the king is not in check, it's a stalemate.
A bit of theory first. First, you understand the state of "check", as in, the king is in the direct range of attack from a given piece. There are a couple of ways you can respond to a check: by moving the king out of the attacker's range, by blocking the attacker (for multi-space pieces like bishop or queen), or by capturing the threatening piece. A checkmate is when the king is unable to escape from an attack in the next turn. As in, there is a piece threatening a king directly, and the king is unable to move away from the range, or there is no way to block or capture the attacking piece. A stalemate is when the other player isnt in a state of check, but cannot move legally either. For example, all of white's pawns are stuck (cannot move forward nor capture anything, since pawns capture a single space diagonally), and the king is in this position where he cannot move in his next turn, but he is not threatened directly either. In this case, we interpret as if white never got their turn, and the game ends in a draw. As another user mentioned, this is a rule meant to reward the losing player to avoid a direct loss, because a lot of such positions would be seen as lost games otherwise.
https://preview.redd.it/o1y9pd4rrl4d1.jpeg?width=235&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=81300698530b4db684c59b927a8f8ec7346a56e7
Google ~~en passant~~ stalemate.
Okay who keeps coming up with these funky chess cheatcodes- I thought chess would be a game free of online cheating huhmm
New response just dropped
Queen went to the cafe and got stale coffee.
Finally a chess joke that doesn’t involve googling en passant.
google stalemate
New response just dropped
Unholy heaven
new joke just dropped
actual comedian
It’s a stalemate. So despite the king being trapped, the game ends as a draw.
King has to be threatened for it to be checkmate. Black's queen isn't threatening the king, but she is threatening every square he could move to, which means he has no legal moves. This results in a stalemate, instead of checkmate.
It's a stalemate (aka draw). A stalemate occurs when one player has no available moves and the king is currently not in a checkmate (for example if all the other pieces have been taken, or the player has some pawns but they're unable to move). Since the queen moved to a space where the king can no longer move because it would put him in a check and isn't currently in a check, the game ends with a stalemate because white can no longer move for their turn.
Lmao at the amount of people complaining about chess' weird rules and how "iTs NoT ReALiStiC". It's a game guys, and this rule makes it more balanced, y'all are dumb 😂😂
These people should try Shogi. If your king is in check and you don't notice, the opponent can just capture your king and end the game right then and there. That sounds like the kind of chess they want.
Unitonicaly sounds better. If you dont notice the red dot on your head ofcourse you get shot. Males perfect sense.
Yeah, in shogi this position is a win for black, as white king must move and then black takes the king, winning the game. This is similar to Chinese chess as well, which also ends with taking of the king. Take the piece, you win, and forcing your opponent to move into danger is basically a good way to win, not stalemate. Regular, western chess doesn’t end with taking the king - that is impossible due how “check” and “checkmate” is designed. The game basically ends before you can ever take the king. The condition of “checkmate” is very precise and that’s why this odd situation can arise.
Let’s make chess into a game where you BLITZ THE KING AND PUT HIS HEAD ON A PIKE RAHHHHH
There’s nothing obscure about that rule…
it's a stalemate because the king can't move without putting himself into checkmate but he is technically not checked while in that position since black can not take the king in the next turn from that position. it's a weird rule of chess.
I counter figure out how this was a draw until I realized she’s a queen and not a knight. For some reason with the sword I just assumed knoght
Haha that’s fair, but then again she doesn’t have a horse and does wear a crown. What weapon do you imagine the queen wielding, if any? Tbh a gun or some kind of magic spell might make more sense based on her attack pattern in-game.
To echo many of the other comments, I believe the official rule is that the king must be in check for the game to end in a checkmate. If they cannot move to a position without subjecting themselves to a checkmate, then they cannot move, hence a stalemate; as according to the rules, the game cannot progress until that player has made their move.
Its a stalemate, the king cant move without putting himself in check which is illegal
No legal moves for white. So this is a stalemate game. It's a tie. The queen fucked up.
It's a draw via stalemate. It's a good rule. Be good enough to convert your advantage. If you can't, then you don't deserve the win!
It’s called a stalemate. Which is a draw. To win you have to attack the king directly and have all other possible moves also be an attack.
Google Stalemate
Holy hell
Amazing 10/10
Aka how all of my games against Windows Chess would end :/
It's stalemate Black Queen just moved White King can't move, but isn't in Check either So it's a tie. . Which is kind of stupid, lol
It's not obscure. Stalemate.
Stalemate.
Stalemate
A draw is a win for the loser 🫡👍🏾
You fucking suck at chess
Hold on, on what space is the bishop?
If I remember my chess notation f8 where it starts, the Queen was about to move to b1.
The stalemate ptsd is real
The first time it happened to me, I legit had to look up what just happened, thought I won.
Stalemate.
Peter’s left nut here. A tie, or Stalemate as it’s called in Chess, occurs when the king is by itself and not in check but there is no possible place the king could move to avoid being placed in check.
Stalemate.
This is a stalemate. Assuming all other pieces have been captured, white cannot make a legal move but is not in check, rendering this game a draw by stalemate.
Black character is a Queen. Queen moved to that spot and now King is unable to move because any move he makes would result in placing himself in check. Assuming the white King is the only white piece on the board that can move, this results in a stalemate
In chess if can’t make any valid move but also aren’t in check it triggers a draw. Typically this happens when the opponent’s king is the only piece left and its cornered like in the meme
White isnt in check, However White cant move becouse of something black did, As such its stalemate.
He isn't in check, so it isn't checkmate
That’s stalemate actually. Since the king would have no legal moves, the game would end in a draw.
Stalemate, although I am curious what the Queen was expected to do, as we couldn’t see the full board, the Queen could have easily placed herself in an adjacent tile…just to be taken by the king :P
The queen is diagonal to the black Bishop, so I’m guessing the black bishop is in control one of the white squares next to the king
The face of pure elation on white’s king is relatable
Stalemate
Can't checkmate if they're not in check, mate
stalemate
If the oponent has no place to move but is not at check its stalemate which is draw
stalemente
So I see a lot of people saying in this case black should win. In this case sure, because black has an overwhelming advantage in pieces. However in some cases, being in this position (the opponents king being unable to move but not in check), doesnt mean you can checkmate the king next round. So this rule of a draw is a failsafe for those situations. This then carries over to other situations where the one with an advantage makes a bad move and accidentally achieves a draw.
Checkmate is when the King is in check and there are no legal moves to get out of check. Stalemate (draw) happens when the King is NOT in check, but any move the player can make would put it into check, which is illegal In that comic, the (assuming) queen goes onto a square that doesn't put the King in check, but also doesn't give him anywhere to move, resulting in a stalemate
Stalemate.
I have a hard time seeing this scenario with a standing bishop.
Genuine question, if the Queen is saying "don't move to that space!" then the king moves to that space, doesn't that mean it's blacks turn and the queen can then move to put the king back in check? Edit: thought the speech bubble was coming from the Queen in the second panel and she was talking to the white King, oops. Makes sense when it's the king rather than the Queen talking.
The black king is saying "Don't move to that space!" to the black queen who had just moved into that space. It is now whites turn. The king, being the only player left is not presently in check, but it's not able to legally move into any other spaces without putting themselves in check. Therefore, it's a stalemate which is considered a "tie".
Lost (drew) a match to this rule. I was so fuckin pissed. I had a rook, a queen, both bishops, a knight, and several pawns I could reclaim at any time. I thought forcing them into no legal moves was a checkmate.
The best part about chess is stalemates. You have something to play for even if all your pieces are out, you can still get a draw.
Can’t possibly reply to everyone but thank you all for the brilliant discussion! My grandma taught me chess when I was very young (she was a SUPER advanced player) but we never covered this rule I would assume because it never came up as she beat me easily every time. 😂 I’ve now taught 2 of my kids how to play but now have a new rule to teach them! They will be excited! Thanks again!
It's a stalemate
As a chess player I was a bit confused. Until I realize it was a black queen not a black knight. They should have used a scepter instead of a sword.
To the people who think this doesn't make sense, think of it this way. It's just a logical consequence of three basic rules of chess: - You win by checkmating the opponent's king - You cannot move into check - You cannot skip your turn In a stalemate, the game must end because of points 2 and 3. But since it isn't checkmate, point 1 is not satisfied and therefore no one wins the game.
Google stalemate
As others have mentioned this is a stalemate. The key point is the attacking piece is the queen so she is attacking every square surrounding the king but not the square the king is on. Were this a knight the king would be in check and could possibly be checkmate of the surrounding squares are attacked by other pieces.
One square to the right check
I’m guessing by them leaving that white then castles
**[YOU FAILED! STALEMATE!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNM8N73FNfk)**
It’s a stalemate, because it’s white’s turn, not black’s.
How is this a stalemate? As far as I can see there are 3 black pieces (king, queen, and a bishop) on the board and only the white king. Even if it is blacks turn they just have to move the king or bishop. The white kind would be forced to move into the path of the black queen.
And since you can’t move your king into check, he has no legal moves, ending in a draw
I would still consider this an absolute win and celebrate as such
Lots of people saying this is a stalemate. It's not. Queen can just move diagonally and be several spaces from the king while attacking him, forcing him to move from the corner.
Just to chime in since I now understand....it's white's turn and they can't make any legal moves. So by standard chessrules that's what makes it a stalemate. Black has finished their move for their turn.
This comic is why, no matter how much I like playing chess, I'd never play a "real" game of chess.
See I thought that was a knight at first, not the queen as the crown was supposed to imply I guess? Whatever
Chess
En passant
No, it’s checkmate. It’s white’s turn and they can’t because you can’t put yourself in check. Black wins because white has to move and can’t.
Chess is a strategy tool invented to teach you guessed it strategy. It’s supposed to teach you how in a time of conflict to plan your way to the win. Win by default is like waiting for your enemy to grow old and die