stalemate

Example of stalemate

Black to move is in stalemate. Black has no legal move since each square to which the lone king might move is attacked by the white queen or king (Polgar & Truong 2005:33).

This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.

Stalemate is a situation in chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check but has no legal moves. A stalemate ends the game in a draw. Stalemate is covered in the rules of chess.

During the endgame, stalemate is a resource that can enable the player with the inferior position to draw the game. In more complicated positions, stalemate is much rarer, usually taking the form of a swindle that succeeds only if the superior side is inattentive. Stalemate is also a common theme in endgame studies and other chess problems.

The outcome of a stalemate was standardized as a draw in the 19th century. Before this standardization, its treatment varied widely, including being deemed a win for the stalemating player, a half-win for that player, or a loss for that player; not being permitted; and resulting in the stalemated player missing a turn.

Some regional chess variants have not allowed a player to play a stalemating move. In different versions of suicide chess, another chess variant, stalemate may or may not be treated as a draw.

The word "stalemate" is also used for a metaphor when a conflict has reached an impasse and resolution seems difficult or impossible, i.e. a no-win situation.

Diagram 1 Black to move is in stalemate	Diagram 2 Black to move is in stalemate
Diagram 3 Black to move is in stalemate	Diagram 4 Black to move is in stalemate

Simple examples

With Black to move, Black is stalemated in diagrams 1 to 4. (Chess diagram convention has white playing up the board, black down.) Stalemate is an important factor in the endgame – the endgame set-up in diagram 2, for example, quite frequently is relevant in play (see King and pawn versus king endgame). The position in diagram 2 occurred in an 1898 game between Amos Burn and Harry Pillsbury^[1] and also in a 1925 game between Savielly Tartakower and Richard Réti.^[2]

The position in diagram 4 is an example of a pawn drawing against a queen. Stalemates of this sort can often save a player from losing an apparently hopeless position (see Queen versus pawn endgame). In that position, even if it were White's move, there is no way to avoid this stalemate without allowing Black's pawn to promote. (White may be able to win the resulting queen versus queen ending, however, if the white king is close enough).

Stalemate in the endgame

As the previous section suggests, stalemate is a typical element of the endgame (Pachman 1973:17), often enabling the player with the inferior position to draw the game (Hooper & Whyld 1992:387). Below are some examples of this from actual play.

Anand versus Kramnik

Anand-Kramnik, 2007

Before 65... Kxf5, stalemate

In this game between Viswanathan Anand and Vladimir Kramnik from the 2007 World Chess Championship,^[3] Black must capture the pawn on f5, causing stalemate (Benko 2008:49). (Any other move by Black loses.)

Korchnoi versus Karpov

Korchnoi-Karpov 1978

Position after 124. Bc3-g7

An intentional stalemate occurred on the 124th move of the fifth game of the 1978 World Championship match between Anatoly Karpov and Viktor Korchnoi.^[4] The game had been a theoretical draw for many moves (Karolyi & Aplin 2007:170), (Griffiths 1993:43-46). (Even if White wins the black pawn, the black king can get to the a8 corner and set up a fortress. See fortress (chess)#Fortress in a corner and Wrong rook pawn#Korchnoi-Karpov.) However the players were not on speaking terms so neither would offer a draw by agreement. Korchnoi said that it gave him pleasure to stalemate Karpov and that it was slightly humiliating (Kasparov 2006:120). (Incidentally, as of 2008 this is the longest game played in a World Chess Championship final match, and also the only World Championship game to end in stalemate (Fox & James 1993:236).)

Bernstein versus Smyslov

Bernstein-Smyslov, 1946 Black to move ...

Bernstein-Smyslov, 1946 .. fell into a stalemate trap

Sometimes a surprise stalemate saves a game. In the game between Ossip Bernstein and Vasily Smyslov, Black should win by sacrificing the f-pawn and using the king to support the b-pawn. However, Smyslov thought it was good to advance the b-pawn, because of the skewer of the rook if it captures the pawn once it is on b2. Play went:

1... b2??

2. Rxb2!

Now if 2... Rh2+ 3. Kf3! Rxb2 is stalemate. Smyslov moved 2... Kg4 and the game was drawn after 3. Kf1 (see rook and pawn versus rook endgame) (Minev 2004:21).

Matulović versus Minev

Matulović-Minev, 1956 White to move

Matulović-Minev, 1956 Stalemate if White had played 4. Rxa6

In the Bernstein-Smyslov game, the possibility of stalemate arose because of a blunder. It can arise without one, as in the game Milan Matulović-Nikolay Minev (at right). Play continued:

1. Rc6 Kg5

2. Kh3 Kh5

3. f4 (hoping for 3... Ra3+?, with a win for White)

3....Rxa6!

and now 4. Rxa6 would be stalemate. White played 4. Rc5+ instead and the game was drawn several moves later (Minev 2004:22).

Williams versus Harrwitz

Williams-Harrwitz, 1846 Position after 72.Ka1

Williams-Harrwitz Position after 84.Rb3! If Black takes the rook either way, the result is stalemate.

In the game between Elijah Williams and Daniel Harrwitz (diagram at right), Black was up a knight and a pawn in an endgame. This would normally be a decisive material advantage, but Black could find no way to make progress because of various stalemate resources available to White. The game continued:

72. ... Ra8

73. Rc1 Ke3 (avoiding the threatened 73...Nc2+)

74. Rc4 Ra4

75. Rc1 Kd2

76. Rc4 Kd3 (76. ... Nc2+ 77.Rxc2+! Kxc2 is stalemate)

77. Rc3+! Kd4 (77. ...Kxc3 is stalemate)

78. Rc1 Ra3

79. Rd1+ Kc5 (79. ... Rd3 80. Rxd3+! leaves Black with insufficient material to win after 80. ... Nxd3 81. Kxa2, or a standard fortress in a corner draw after 80. ... Kxd3)

80. Rc1+ Kb5

81. Rc7 Nd5

82. Rc2 Nc3

83. Rb2+ Kc4

84. Rb3! (diagram at right)

Now the players agreed to a draw, since 84...Kxb3 or 84...Rxb3 is stalemate, as is 84...Ra8 85.Rxc3+! Kxc3.^[5]

Black could still win the game until his critical mistake 82...Nc3. Instead, 82...Nb4 wins - for example: 83. Rc8 Re3 84. Rb8+ Kc5 85. Rc8+ Kd5 86. Rd8+ Kc6 87. Ra8 Re1+ 88. Kb2 Kc5 89. Kc3 a1=Q and wins.

More complicated examples

Stalemate can also occur with more pieces on the board. Outside of relatively simple endgame positions, such as those above, stalemate occurs rarely, usually when the side with the superior position has overlooked the possibility of stalemate (Pachman 1973:17). This is typically realized by the inferior side's sacrifice of one or more pieces in order to force stalemate. A piece that is offered as a sacrifice to bring about stalemate is sometimes called a desperado.

Evans versus Reshevsky

Evans-Reshevsky, 1963 Position before White's forty-seventh move

Evans-Reshevsky, 1963 Position after 50. Rxg7+!, the eternal rook

One of the best-known examples of the desperado is a game by Larry Evans versus Reshevsky, which was dubbed "The Swindle of the Century".^[6] Evans sacrificed his queen on move 49 and offered his rook on move 50. White's rook has been called the eternal rook. Capturing it results in stalemate, but otherwise it stays on the seventh rank and checks Black's king ad infinitum (i.e. perpetual check). The game would inevitably end in a draw by agreement, by threefold repetition, or by an eventual claim under the fifty-move rule (Averbakh 1996:80-81).

47. h4! Re2+

48. Kh1 Qxg3?? (After 48...Qg6! 49.Rf8 Qe6! 50.Rh8+ Kg6, Black remains a piece ahead after 51.Qxe6 Nxe6, or forces mate after 51.gxf4 Re1+ and 52...Qa2+.)^[7]

49. Qg8+! Kxg8

50. Rxg7+!

Gelfand versus Kramnik

Gelfand-Kramnik, 1994 Position after 67. Re7

Gelfand-Kramnik, 1994 Possible stalemate

The position at right occurred in Gelfand-Kramnik, FIDE Candidates match, game 6, Sanghi Nagar 1994. Kramnik (Black), down two pawns and on the defensive, would be very happy with a draw. Gelfand (White) has just played 67. Re4-e7?, a strong-looking move that threatens 68. Qxf6, winning a third pawn, or 68.Rc7, further constricting Black. Black responded 67... Qc1! If White takes Black's undefended rook with 68. Qxd8, Black's desperado queen forces the draw with 68... Qh1+ 69. Kg3 Qh2+!, compelling 70. Kxh2 stalemate (second diagram). If White avoids the stalemate with 68. Rxg7+ Kxg7 69. Qxd8, Black draws by perpetual check with 69... Qh1+ 70. Kg3 Qg1+ 71. Kf4 Qc1+! 72. Ke4 Qc6+! 73. Kd3!? (73. d5 Qc4+; 73. Qd5 Qc2+) Qxf3+! 74. Kd2 Qg2+! 75. Kc3 Qc6+ 76. Kb4 Qb5+ 77. Ka3 Qd3+. Gelfand played 68. d5 instead, but still only drew.^[8]

Troitzky versus Vogt

Troitzky-Vogt, 1896 White, on move, sets a trap with 1.Rd1!

Troitzky-Vogt, 1896 Position after 3... Qxd1, stalemate

In Troitzky-Vogt, 1896, the famous endgame study composer pulled off an elegant swindle in actual play. After Troitzky's 1.Rd1!, Black fell into the trap with the seemingly crushing 1...Bh3?, threatening 2...Qg2#. The game concluded 2.Rxd8+ Kxd8 3.Qd1+! Qxd1 stalemate. White's bishop, knight, and f-pawn are all pinned and unable to move.^[9][10]

Stalemate in studies

Rhine 2005 White to play and draw

Incredibly, the possibility of stalemate allows White, three pieces down, to draw.

Stalemate is a frequent theme in endgame studies (Hooper & Whyld 1992:388) and other chess compositions. An example is the "White to Play and Draw" study at left, which was composed by the American master Frederick Rhine^[11] in 2005 and published in 2006 (Benko 2006:49). White saves a draw with 1.Ne5+! Black wins after 1.Nb4+? Kb5! or 1.Qe8+? Bxe8 2.Ne5+ Kb5! 3.Rxb2+ Nb3. Bxe5 After 1...Kb5? 2.Rxb2+ Nb3 3.Rxc4! Qxe3 (best; 3...Qb8+ 4.Kd7 Qxh8 5.Rxb3+ forces checkmate) 4.Rxb3+! Qxb3 5.Qh1! Bf5+ 6.Kd8!, White is winning. 2.Qe8+! 2.Qxe5? Qb7+ 3.Kd8 Qd7#. Bxe8 3.Rh6+ Bd6 3...Kb5 4.Rxb6+ Kxb6 5.Nxc4+ also leads to a drawn endgame. Not 5.Rxb2+? Bxb2 6.Nc4+ Kb5 7.Nxb2 Bh5! trapping White's knight. 4.Rxd6+! Kxd6 5.Nxc4+! Nxc4 6.Rxb6+ Nxb6+ Moving the king is actually a better try, but the resulting endgame of two knights and a bishop against a rook is a well-established theoretical draw (Fine & Benko 2003:524) (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:403) (Staunton 1847:439).^[12] 7.Kd8! (diagram at right) Black is three pieces ahead, but if White is allowed to take the bishop, the two knights are insufficient to force checkmate. The only way to save the bishop is to move it, resulting in stalemate. A similar idea occasionally enables the inferior side to save a draw in the ending of bishop, knight, and king versus lone king.

Roycroft White to play and draw

Final position

At right is a remarkable composition by A.J. Roycroft. White draws with 1.c7! g5 (1...Ka1 2.c8(R) transposes to the main line; 1...f5 2.c8(Q) Bc3 3.Qxf5+ draws by stalemate) 2.c8(R)!! (2.c8(Q)? Ka1 3.Qc2 (or 3.Qc1) b1(Q) wins) Ka1 (2...Ng6 3.Rc1+ forces Black to capture, stalemating White) 2...b1(Q) 3.Rc2!!, and now 3...Qxc2 or 3...g5 is stalemate, while otherwise White will sacrifice his rook on b2) 3.Rc2!! (not 3.Rc1+?? b1(Q)+! 4.Rxb1+ Bxb1#; now White threatens 4.Rxb2 and 5.Rxa2+, forcing stalemate or perpetual check) Bc4 (trying to get in a check; 3...b1(Q), 3...b1(B), and 3...Bb1 are all stalemate; 3...Ng6 4.Rc1+!) 4.Rc1+ Ka2 5.Ra1+ Kb3 6.Ra3+ Kc2 7.Rc3+ Kd2 8.Rc2+ (diagram at right). As in Evans-Reshevsky, Black cannot escape the "eternal rook". (Roycroft 1972:294)

Stalemate in problems

Some chess problems require "White to move and stalemate black in n moves" (rather than the more common "White to move and checkmate black in n moves").