|
STALEMATE!
|
| In the last fifty years chess theorists, troubled
by an excessive number of draws, have suggested rules changes to make draws
more difficult to obtain. Some have suggested making the game more
complicated by enlarging the board or adding new pieces. Others have
suggested doing away with the draw by stalemate. |
| The British master T. H. Tylor wrote in 1940 that
the laws of chess should be changed so that stalemates would be considered
lost by the player who had no moves. C. H. O’D. Alexander recently
recommended that stalemate should be considered an inferior form of win;
this of course would require a scoring system that gives other results
than 1-0, ½-½, or 0-1. |
| Both Tylor and Alexander are returning to an earlier
view of stalemate, which has been regarded differently at various times
in various countries. The earliest rule on the matter, from tenth-century
Arabia, viewed stalemate as a win for the stalemating side. In sixteenth-century
Spain stalemate was considered a half-win: if, as often happened, the game
was played for a stake, the loser by stalemate paid an amount halfway between
the sums agreed on in case of checkmate or a draw. In Italy, from
the fourteenth century on, stalemate was regarded as a draw, and this view
gradually came to be accepted all over Europe. The last holdout was
England where, paradoxically, stalemate was considered a loss for
the stalemating side until Sarratt persuaded the London Chess Club in 1808
to make the European practice the official rule in England also.
Though this became the law in tournaments, the old rule died hard. Hoyle’s
Games Improved, as late as the edition of 1866 (the year of Steinitz’s
match with Anderssen!) still said that the game was won by the player who
was left with no legal moves. |
| But isn’t stalemate such a rare occurrence that
a change in the rules would affect only one game in a thousand? At
first it might seem so, until one looks more closely into endgame theory.
For example, all drawn K+P vs. K endings are drawn because of stalemate.
Q vs. RP or BP on the seventh rank is a draw by stalemate, as is the notorious
ending of wrong B+RP vs. K. The king plus two knights can always
stalemate a bare king; if the defending king is cornered, even one knight
or one bishop may be able to bring about a stalemate. Without the
stalemate rule, K+R would win against K+B, though not against K+N.
Because these endings are rarely played to a conclusion, we tend to look
on them as “theoretical draws” and forget that stalemates are potentially
present in a large number of endings. |
| Besides the “book” draws there are typical stalemate
motifs which occur again and again, usually in endings with queens or rooks;
some of them are shown in Diagrams A
to D. With no mobile pawns,
or no pawns at all, the defending side can sometimes draw by giving up
its Q or R to bring about one of these stalemates. |
|
|
|
(1)
|
For example, Diagram 1 shows a position
from Bilek - Heidenfeld, Lugano, 1968, where White, weary after four playing
sessions and 127 moves, answered 1...Qg8+ with 2.c4?, allowing 2...Qg3+!
and an immediate draw. |
|
|
| Another way of bringing about the
same motif was shown in Chigorin - Schlechter, Ostend, 1905 (Diagram 2).
Schlechter, in great time-pressure, played 1...Qc7+. Chigorin, thinking
that Black had blundered, forced the exchange of queens by 2.Qb6+?, but
Black’s 2...Ka8! showed that White had thrown away the win, since 3.Ka6
Qc8+ 4.Ka5 Qc7 gets nowhere. |
(2)
|
|
|
(3)
|
A modern example of the same theme
is Boljos - Maric, Yugoslavia, 1970 (Diagram 3). Black drew after
1...Qd7+ 2.g4 hxg4+ 3.Kg3 Qd6+ 4.Qf4+? Kh5! since 5.a4 gives winning chances
only to Black after 5...Qxf4+ 6.Kxf4 bxa4. |
|
|
| An example of stalemate B
is Matanovic - Lengyel, Yugoslavia v. Hungary, 1964 (Diagram 4).
White had carelessly pushed his pawn to f6, and Lengyel succeeded in shedding
his unwanted pieces by 1...d3+ 2.Kxd3 Qd4+ (2.Ke1 d2+ and 2.Kd1 Qd2+ lead
to the same result). |
(4)
|
|
|
(5)
|
In R+P endings too it is frequently
possible to check perpetually with the unprotected R along a rank or file,
once the K is stalemated. Stalemate C
clinched the draw in Stein - Keres, Tallinn, 1969 (Diagram 5): 1.Rg4+ Kh3
2.Rh4+ Kg3 3.Rh3+! |
|
|
| In positions like D
there is usually a pawn on f4 (or further back on the file) to protect
the K from constant checks from behind. But even with the K shielded,
the defender often can draw as in Bannik - Vistaneckis, Spartak Club Championship,
1961 (Diagram 6): 1...a1Q+! 2.Rxa1 Ra2! and draws by opposing White’s R
wherever it goes. |
(6)
|
|
|
(7)
|
Even Smyslov, the finest R+P ending
player of his day, fell into a similar draw against Bernstein, Groningen,
1946 (Diagram 7) when he tried to finish off his opponent by 1...b2?
Bernstein simply played 2.Rxb2, since 2...Rh2+ is met by 3.Kf3! I
once saw two experts in a local tournament reach an almost identical position.
When 1...b2 was played, White said “Very nice!” and resigned. |
|
|
| Sometimes in endings with Qs and Rs
there is an opportunity to sacrifice two or three pieces to force the draw.
In Tiberger - Drelikiewicz, Poland, 1970 (Diagram 8) Black’s K is not stalemated
and his Q, R, and P are mobile. However, 1...h3+ 2.Kxh3 Qf5+ 3.Qxf5
Rxg3+ 4.Kh4 Rg4+ allowed him to save a half-point. |
(8)
|
|
|
(9)
|
In Diagram 9, Ormos - Batoczky, Budapest, 1951,
Black has three mobile pieces. Watch them disappear: 1...Rb1+
2.Kh2 Rh1+ 3.Kxh1 Ng3+ 4.fxg3 Qxg2+! |
|
|
| Occasionally the superior side is so disoriented
by the unexpected stalemate that his opponent gets a bonus. In Kralmstoever
- Seyferth, Bitterfield, 1957 (Diagram 10) White’s 1.Qf6! stunned Black
into 1...Kg8? (1...Kh7 draws after 2.Qxg7+) and 2.Qxg6 won easily. |
(10)
|
|
|
(11)
|
Though stalemates are much rarer in minor-piece
endings, they can occur—and are usually much more startling than in major-piece
endings. A case in point is Ciocaltea-Pachman, Prague, 1954 (Diagram
11). Pachman tried to force a quick win by 1...h2+? 2.Kh1 Bf3+, but
found to his chagrin that 3.Rg2+ saved the day for White. |
|
|
| A similar distribution of material led to a different draw in
Raina - Lintia, Lugoj, 1960 (Diagram 12): 1.Rg8! (threatening to
draw by 2.Rxg2) 1...Bg3+ 2.Rxg3 hxg3+ 3.Kg1 Kh4 4.b6 Bc8 5.b7. |
(12)
|
|
|
(13)
|
Diagram 13 is from Furman-Smejkal,
Tallinn, 1971. White despondently played 1.Ne4+ and resigned after
1...Kf3 2.Nxc5 a2 3.Nb3 Ke4 4.Kg2 Kd5. When the game ended, Tal,
who had been watching, asked Smejkal “What were you going to play on 1.Nb3?”
Smejkal said “1...a2, of course” but he had no comeback when Tal showed
him 2.Nc1!!, since even 2...a1N only leads to a draw after 3.Nb3! |
|
|
| If a player can bury his own king
by blocking its exit with one of his own pawns, he can sometimes be amazingly
generous with his remaining pieces. One example is Edward Lasker
- Lewitt, Hamburg, 1910 (Diagram 14). After 1.h5! cxb1Q would be
useless because of 2.Re8+ Rg8 3.Rxg8+; so Black tried 1...c1Q+ 2.Rbxc1
bxc1Q+ 3.Rxc1 Rbg8 4.Rc8! Rg6+ 5.fxg6 Rxc8 (5...fxg6 and 5...hxg6 are equally
useless) but 6.g7+ Kg8 still left a stalemate. |
(14)
|
|
|
(15)
|
A classic draw by self-interment is Marshall -
MacClure, New York, 1923 (Diagram 15): 1.Rh6! Rxh6 2.h8Q+! Rxh8 3.b5
and Black, two rooks ahead, cannot relieve the stalemate—unless he wishes
to try 3...Rd7 4.cxd7 c5 (otherwise 5.d8Q+) 5.bxc6 Kb8 6.Kxb6 and White
wins. |
|
|
| If all else fails, an appeal to the opponent’s
avarice may succeed. In a game that has been called the “swindle
of the century,” Evans-Reshevsky, New York, 1964 (Diagram 16), White played
1.h4 Re2+ 2.Kh1 and Reshevsky took the g-pawn (instead of 2...Qg6 3.Rf8
Qe6! 4.gxf4 Re1+ and mates). Then White played 3.Qg8+! Kxg8 4.Rxg7+!
and Reshevsky, in Evans’ words, “smiled with wry bitterness and mumbled
one word to himself: ‘Stupid!’” This was, in fact, the third stalemate
overlooked by Reshevsky in an important tournament game. In the U.
S. Championship of 1942 he fell into a draw of type A
against Carl Pilnick, and in the Candidates’ Tournament, Zurich, 1953,
he missed a stalemate resource by Geller in a R+P ending where Reshevsky
had two extra pawns. The Russian analyst Verkhovsky has pointed out
that stalemate-blindness apparently comes over Reshevsky every eleven years,
so be alert if you play him in 1975. |
(16)
|
|
|
(17)
|
An even more striking example of a grandmaster’s
trusting acceptance of everything that is offered is Gurgenidze-Suetin,
Spartak Club Championship, 1961 (Diagram 17): 1.a5 bxa5 2.Rf1 Qxg5?
(Didn’t Suetin wonder just a little about White’s generosity?) 3.Qe8+
Kg7 4.Rf7+ Kh6 5.Rxh7+ Kxh7 6.Qh8+! |
|
|
| Diagram 18, Zagoriansky-Tolush, Moscow, 1945, shows the
trapper trapped by stalemate. Tolush caught White’s Q after 1.Qxf4!
g2+ 2.Kf2 Rf6, but the K escaped by 3.Kg1! |
(18)
|
|
|
(19)
|
In Titenko-Murei, Moscow, 1963 (Diagram
19) Black saved himself by combining two drawing resources: perpetual check
and stalemate. On 1...d2+ 2.Kxf2 (2.Kd1? loses to 2...Ke3!) 2...d1Q
3.Re6+! (Black has a perpetual after 3.c8Q Qd2+) 3...Kd3 4.c8Q White seemed
to have an escape from the perpetual by 4...Qd2+ 5.Kg1 Qd1+ 6.Kh2 Qd2+
7.Kh3, but 4...Qd2+ 5.Kg1 Qc1+! forced a draw anyway. |
|
| Diagram 20 is a position reportedly from an actual offhand
game Troitsky-Vogt, played in 1896. The famous endgame composer’s
imagination is shown in this remarkable save by White: 1.Rd1! Bh3?
2.Rxd8+ Kxd8 3.Qd1+!, and three pins bring about a stalemate, despite the
crowded board! |
(20)
|
|
|
| Will the stalemate rule ever be changed? Some
day, perhaps. But until it is, these examples remind us that alertness
to possible stalemates is a useful weapon in a player’s endgame arsenal. |
|
Originally published in Michigan Chess,
August/September 1973, p4-6
|
|
