Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2015 June 8

= June 8 =

It is possible to create some stalemate situation that is stalemate even without check-mate rules?
On chess, it is possible to create some stalemate situation that is stalemate even without check-mate rules?201.79.88.18 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. The strict definition of "stalemate" in chess is that there are no valid moves that do not place the moving player in check -- discard the rules for being in check and you have discarded the notion of stalemate. A more expansive question, though, is whether you can set up a situation that forces a draw, as listed in the linked article. Cases that force a draw under standard circumstances will still force a draw without check rules in place -- your "no check" modification only serves to allow a player to place his King in a wider variety of positions that will lose on the opponent's next move, but it does not give the active player any new game-prolonging options. &mdash; Lomn 19:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The OP might not be talking about ditching the rules of check, but excluding them. That is, the OP might be asking: Is there a stalemate that would still be stalemate even if it were legal for the king to move into a square that is in check? For example, imagine the king completely surrounded by pieces. In this situation, the king can't move at all, and so there might be a stalemate here that does not rely on the king not being able to move into check. 03:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:5C01:ECB0:192B:704F:7D84:8494 (talk)


 * Here's one (previously posted by me on Talk:Stalemate). Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)