In the first part of this article I discussed the idea of GM Nigel Short and others that stalemate should be scored not as a draw, but as a win for the stalemating player. My own reaction to that proposal remains negative. In my view, the possibility of stalemate adds a valuable dimension to chess. It requires the stronger side to conduct the attack with care, and to pay attention to subtleties in the position and unexpected resources for the defense. Above all, it leads to complex theory in end game play, where without the stalemate draw the game would be mechanical.
To take a simple example, the first diagram below shows a typical two bishop mating pattern. The black king is corralled in the h8 corner. An alert player with white will have no difficulty: he needs only play a waiting move, say 1.Be3, and after 1…Kh7 finish the job with 2.Be4+ and 3.Bd4++. But a player sleep-walking through this “obvious” win might be so eager to finish as to play 1.Be4 right away. It’s a blunder, of course: you’ve stalemated the opponent and given away the win.
Next are two similar embarrassments that inexperienced players regularly fall into: in the second diagram White has just played Qe1-e6, expecting to mate on his next move. Of course there will be no next move, because the game has now ended in stalemate. White had a myriad of reasonable moves (including the best, Kc6, forcing mate in one), but has blundered into a draw.
Similarly, in the third diagram Black has moved his king to the corner after a knight check, and White has eagerly brought his rook into the action with Ra2-a7, threatening the typical mate on h7. But that mate won’t happen, because the game has just ended in stalemate.
Those who agree with GM Short feel that coming close is good enough: Checkmate is no longer necessary, and players shouldn’t have to learn the subtleties needed to get over such hurdles as the above. We shouldn’t be allowed to blunder away a win; we deserve somehow to be protected against our own blunders! In society we have laws to protect us from ourselves, such seat-belt laws, but in most cases these are justified as protecting others. But the proposed anti-blunder rule has no such redeeming social value. It would solely protect the blunderer against his own oversights: it should no longer be possible to mess up the above endings.
Every language has proverbs that caution a buyer against getting swindled: “Don’t buy a pig in a poke” (i.e., in a sack, unseen). In “real life” swindling isn’t nice. But chess is war, and swindling is more or less what it’s all about. If you get swindled, it’s your own fault; you missed something you should have seen. The stalemate swindle is often the last resource of the player who is at the end of his rope. Nothing recommends the stalemate rule more than the opportunity for swindling that it affords a defender, requiring the attacker to be ever alert. Chess history is full of such happy events (in the defender’s view). One example comes from Bird-Englisch, London 1883.
The next example is a great swindle from an amateur blitz game, where White sacs his entire remaining army.
The following swindle is a useful bit of rook end game theory.
White to move wins easily: 1.Ra1 Kb8 2.Ra8+, but Black to move can draw with 1…Kb8!. After 2.Rh1 Rb7+! 3.Kc5 (3.cxb7 is stalemate) Rb2, Black has achieved the Philidor drawing line.
A common stalemate involves chasing the king around with a rook, trying to give it away. A classic example of this theme comes from the following game:
– Part three to follow soon –
