# simultaneous stalemate and checkmate **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [March 22, 2016, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863 "2016-03-22T15:16:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TATG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@TATG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TATG)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/21 "2016-03-22T20:03:38Z")
> [@borschevsky](#): > > If I’m understanding **Zach29** correctly, those smothered mates don’t fit what he’s describing. He’s talking about cases where, if you ignore the check, the position is stalemate. So those smothered mates don’t apply, since if he wasn’t in check the player would be able to move some other piece. Fair enough. But I think if you want to find a natural looking smothered mate with the stalemate feature, looking at a variety of smothered mates will give you more ideas. I might try to come up with one myself at some point. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/22 "2016-03-22T20:12:06Z")
> [@Zach29](#): > > And how do we define exactly what a “check” really is? We just look it up in the rules. If you find the current official rules of chess philosophically unpleasant, you can make up your own and play that game instead. One nice thing about the rule change you’re describing here is that it will have no practical effect on any actual chess games, so you can play under your rules against people playing under the standard rules, and you’re both happy. 😃 Why are bishops line pieces rather than 2-square leapers? People just like the game that way, so that’s the rule, whether it’s intuitively pleasing or not. ---
**Author:** ![RadicalPi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/radicalpi/32/9806_2.png) [@RadicalPi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadicalPi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/23 "2016-03-22T20:37:06Z")
If I’m understanding the OP correctly, what he’s saying is that after checkmate, there is an implied sequence of moves that results in the king being taken, and this, for the OP, is the real end of the game. It’s like the home team batting in the bottom of the 9th when they’re already winning. There’s no need to actually go through with it, but it does give a sense of completeness. The purpose of the check rules, with this perspective, is to delay the taking of the king for as long as possible; that is, you can’t force yourself to lose quite so directly. And most of the time, this is how things could go. The white (say) king is checkmated. But now it’s white’s turn, making some move that doesn’t do anything important, and then black swoops in somehow to take the king. If white is in stalemate in this situation, then white can’t make a move, and that impossibility, according to the other rules, leads to a draw, thus interrupting the implied sequence of moves that leads to the white king being taken. The problem with the OP’s reasoning is that the game ends at checkmate. And so the stalemate situation that the OP describes does not actually arise. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/24 "2016-03-22T20:43:28Z")
> [@Zach29](#): > > Go to [Chess Analysis Board and PGN Editor - Chess.com](https://www.chess.com/analysis-board-editor) and cut and paste the following FEN into the analysis board: > > 8/8/5Npp/5prk/5Ppr/3K2Pp/7P/8 w - - 0 1 > > the king is against the side of the board, there is a rook below him and to another to the side, and they are surrounded by 5 pawns so they can’t move, with 3 of the opponent’s pawns blocking the front. > > The player cannot legally make any move, but he is in a seeming checkmate by his opponent’s knight. And white to move? This is an impossible position. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/25 "2016-03-22T20:46:10Z")
Here is what the FIDE Laws (Rules) of Chess have to say: (emphasis mine) \*9.2 Check must be parried by the move immediately following. **If any check cannot be parried, the king is said to be “checkmated” (“mated”).** \* In the OP’s situation, the check cannot be parried because the player in check cannot make a legal move to get out of check. The fact that the player cannot make a legal move, period, is irrelevant. _10.3 The game is drawn when the king of the player who has the move **is not in check** , and this player cannot make any legal move. The player’s king is then said to be “stalemated”. This immediately ends the game._ In other words, it is not stalemate if you are in check. ---
**Author:** ![FasterThanMeerkats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/278dde/32.png) [@FasterThanMeerkats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FasterThanMeerkats)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/26 "2016-03-22T21:05:46Z")
Somewhat related, I always thought stalemate was kind of cheesey anyway. If you can’t move, I should be able to take successive moves, queen all of my pawns, and beat you with a herring. It’s not like any army has been able to say, “we can’t move, it’s a draw!!” ---
**Author:** ![RadicalPi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/radicalpi/32/9806_2.png) [@RadicalPi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadicalPi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/27 "2016-03-22T22:09:40Z")
> [@FasterThanMeerkats](#): > > Somewhat related, I always thought stalemate was kind of cheesey anyway. If you can’t move, I should be able to take successive moves, queen all of my pawns, and beat you with a herring. > > It’s not like any army has been able to say, “we can’t move, it’s a draw!!” You’re not the only one. (I’m okay with it, but there’s a lot of people who don’t particularly like that stalemate is a draw.) ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/28 "2016-03-22T22:20:46Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > And white to move? This is an impossible position. As I understand it, it’s _black’s_ turn to move on the hypothetical, and the OP is saying that black has no legal move, because all his pawns and pieces are completely hemmed in. I don’t know why this is a problem–it’s just a checkmate. ---
**Author:** ![Zach29](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Zach29](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zach29)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/29 "2016-03-22T23:01:40Z")
I would word my argument this way: on the next turn, Black being unable to make any move gets him out of check, because the resulting condition of stalemate prevents white from moving any pieces either, and so puts the Black king out of White’s range of attack, so it is not a checkmate. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/30 "2016-03-22T23:04:40Z")
There is no next turn. White got the checkmate and the win with the knight move. ---
**Author:** ![notquitekarpov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@notquitekarpov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notquitekarpov)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/31 "2016-03-22T23:06:12Z")
I fail to see why the OP is so fixated on the capture of the enemy king. He seems to think that is the unspoken aim of the game but he is wrong. The term checkmate itself comes from the Persian and is often wrongly translated as “the king is dead.”. ln fact, as this link makes clear, it means “the king is helpless”. See [etymology - Origin of the chess term "checkmate" - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/25853/origin-of-the-chess-term-checkmate) Nothing could better express the checkmate position whereby the king is threatened (in check) and helpless and thus defeated. Nothing even suggesting that regicide follows. I think I am done here. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/32 "2016-03-22T23:12:18Z")
It’s a fine argument to make. The fact that the king is not actually captured in a game of chess can seem a bit strange, and the stalemate rule sometimes feels a bit strange too. It would be reasonable to play a variant of chess with different rules - in fact I’ve played blitz chess with the rule that leaving/putting your king in check is legal, and capturing your opponent’s king wins the game. But this does not cause any problem with the rules of standard chess - they’re clear, and the situation **Zach29** is talking about is not some kind of omission or loophole. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/33 "2016-03-22T23:54:28Z")
> [@Zach29](#): > > I would word my argument this way: on the next turn, Black being unable to make any move gets him out of check, because the resulting condition of stalemate prevents white from moving any pieces either, and so puts the Black king out of White’s range of attack, so it is not a checkmate. It’s simple: Am I in check? If Yes -\> Can I get out of check? If No -\> Checkmate. I’m unsure how stalemate fits into this. Stalemates only occur when the king is _not_ in check, and the king very much is in check here. ---
**Author:** ![Zach29](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Zach29](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zach29)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/34 "2016-03-23T00:06:43Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > There is no next turn. White got the checkmate and the win with the knight move. Like I stated, circular logic. It’s either a stalemate, in which case it’s not checkmate, or it’s a checkmate, in which case it’s not stalemate. This the logic keeps referring to itself, there’s no way to make meaningful sense out of it; we know it has to be either one of those two conditions, but we cannot specify which. > [@borschevsky](#): > > But this does not cause any problem with the rules of standard chess - they’re clear, and the situation **Zach29** is talking about is not some kind of omission or loophole. Try to craft a logical definition to describe what we intuitively feel; you will find it is not as easy as you think. Of particular importance is how one goes about defining the precise meaning of what “check” is. And do not use vague or potentially ambiguous concepts. Sometimes pure logic can lead us to seemingly absurd outcomes, and that is exactly what I am trying to do here. I will absolutely agree with you though that no judge would side with my logical argument in an actual chess match. So we’re not disagreeing about that. 😃 I am discussing this from a purely rational and philosophical perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/35 "2016-03-23T00:09:32Z")
> [@Zach29](#): > > Like I stated, circular logic. It’s either a stalemate, in which case it’s not checkmate, or it’s a checkmate, in which case it’s not stalemate. > > This the logic keeps referring to itself, there’s no way to make meaningful sense out of it; we know it has to be either one of those two conditions, but we cannot specify which. Of course we can, and there is nothing circular about it. It is a checkmate the instant White moves his knight to that spot. The game is over. There is no next turn, and the “stalemate” never occurs. ---
**Author:** ![Zach29](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Zach29](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zach29)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/36 "2016-03-23T00:16:49Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > It’s simple: Am I in check? If Yes -\> Can I get out of check? If No -\> Checkmate. I’m trying to assert that achieving a stalemate gets you out of check. Or that it should still be considered a stalemate in this rare situation, even if your king is in check, because of the implied meaning of what “check” represents. Again, I want to draw a distinction between “legal moves” and “possible moves”. I would define a move as “possible” but “not legal” if it results in your king being in check. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/37 "2016-03-23T00:34:04Z")
> [@Zach29](#): > > In chess, a stalemate arises when there is no possible legal move a player can make. True > [@](#): > > Checkmate arises when a player is in check and there is no possible move he can make on the next turn that would allow him to not be in check. True > [@](#): > > It is not explicit, but the obvious concept here is that if the player did not get out of check his king would be captured on the next move. This is checkmate. There is no “next move” > [@](#): > > I got to thinking, what if a situation arises where there is no possible move a player can make (even if moving into check was allowed) but the player is in check. Again, this is checkmate. > [@](#): > > Obviously this would require the player’s king to be completely surrounded by his own pieces, and the opponent’s knight instigating the check, because otherwise the king could still theoretically make a move, even if it was into check. > > So the question is: Would this still be checkmate? _Should_ it be considered a checkmate? Yes, it is checkmate. Yes it _Should_ be considered a checkmate. > [@](#): > > It is true the knight would presumably capture the king on the next move, but before that could happen one of the players is not capable of making any move. It was checkmate, there is no “next move”. > [@](#): > > Even if this is considered a checkmate by definition, …It is… > [@](#): > > I am not sure it should be considered a true checkmate. It certainly isn’t a false checkmate. It is checkmate. Game over. As per the rules. > [@](#): > > In the game of chess, each player has to make one (and only one) move. When a player becomes incapable of doing this the game is immediately over. True > [@](#): > > The only reason moving into check is not allowed is because the king would be captured on the next move. The game is over, there is no “next move” except to reset and play again, or storm out in a huff. > [@](#): > > So, the way I see it, the hypothetical move into check is not forbidden in the same sense that, say, moving the king 2 spaces across the board would be against the rules. They are both forbidden in exactly the same “sense.” > [@](#): > > If the rules of chess were slightly changed, allowing the king to move into check, the overall game would basically not be any different. Sure, you’re welcome to move into check, but if you do you are pretty much guaranteed to automatically lose. This is what I’m talking about. So supposing we were playing by those rules, if I manage to get into a position where I am still incapable of making any move on my turn, shouldn’t that be considered a stalemate?? If the rules are slightly changed, you can do whatever you want. It is no longer a game of chess. It would be a variation. > [@](#): > > If we do not allow the hypothetical situation I described to be considered a stalemate, then the rule about not being allowed to move into check fails to make intuitive sense. The king should be allowed—if only hypothetically—to move into check, and that should count as a hypothetical possible move—thus precluding the condition of a stalemate. In a regular checkmate, we know where the game would inevitably be headed: the king will be captured. > > But if the condition of a stalemate arises before the king can be captured, then there is no winner. You are free to make up and play with any rules/games you want as long as your opponent know and agree to them. > [@](#): > > I am just thinking maybe the rules of chess should be modified to more carefully define the definitions of checkmate and stalemate. Again, you are free to define anything you like for your own games. ---
**Author:** ![Zach29](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Zach29](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zach29)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/38 "2016-03-23T00:52:37Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Yes it _Should_ be considered a checkmate. I can certainly see why you would intuitively feel that way. I am just suggesting that the special situation I described may be slightly different than a normal checkmate. > [@snfaulkner](#): > > It certainly isn’t a false checkmate. It is checkmate. Game over. As per the rules. And what DO the rules say exactly??? I took a look at the rules from the FID and they were actually kind of vague as it relates to this point I am making, when I tried to logically piece the conditions together. It just says: “A piece is said to attack an opponent’s piece if the piece could make a capture on that square according to Articles 3.2 to 3.8.” But then when you look at what it refers to, it just says that, for example, “The rook may move to any square along the file or the rank on which it stands”. Do you see how the wording is actually kind of vague as it relates to this particular issue? Is a checkmate when the king could be captured in the next move, if hypothetically another turn was allowed? The rules do not really specify this point. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/39 "2016-03-23T00:57:49Z")
> [@Zach29](#): > > I’m trying to assert that achieving a stalemate gets you out of check. Except that situation is not a stalemate. Stalemate is defined with the king not being in check and no possible legal moves playable. If the king is in check on his move, a stalemate cannot occur: > [@FIDE Laws of Chess:](#): > > 5.2a. > The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move **and his king is not in check.** The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was legal. Emphasis mine. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863/40 "2016-03-23T01:03:24Z")
Also, from 1.2 of the same laws: > [@](#): > > The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. That pretty clearly to me covers your situation, and the stalemate definition specifically excludes your situation as a stalemate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-stalemate-and-checkmate/749863.md?page=3)