Talk:Stalemate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] image

Will people who are changing the image markup please note that in order for the article to make sense, it is necessary to have the second diagram (the Gelfand-Kramnik one) to the right of the part that says "The position to the right..." (in the Gelfand-Kramnik paragraph). I realise that as things stand this means having a certain amount of white-space in the article at certain resolutions. Maybe by shuffling around or adding some text this can be overcome, but it's not worth making nonsense of the article for. --Camembert

I do not understand why the position in the lower left corner of the first diagram is a stalemate -- if Black is to move, the pawn can capture the queen. -- Zack

Black moves down the board. That's the convention used in all chess diagrams, unless otherwise stated. -- Arvindn
Oh. Of course. I think the pawn being on rank 2 threw me off. -- Zack

At the bottom of the article we have "There have been calls to make a stalemate a win for the stalemater." I don't think I remember hearing anything about this. Who has made such calls, and when? --Camembert

  • This Larry Evans article doesn't say who, but it does mention it (calling it crude):

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessNews/evans/040726.php

  • "A crude proposal that keeps popping up is to award a loss to the player who is stalemated. " --Bubba73 05:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I think at sometime in the past, a stalemate was a LOSS for the stalemater! And at another it was 3/4 win for the stalemater, something like that. Bubba73 (talk), 04:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "silly" paragraph removed

The edit comment was: (you can't move the king on the first few moves, obviously, so do those people believe that all games are instant stalemates?)

I see this misconception all the time in scholastic players, even in tournaments. Even in a tournament 6 days ago. I know it is obvious, but it is still a common misconception. Bubba73 (talk), 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What if we say that it is a fairly common misconception among novices? That is a true statement. Bubba73 (talk), 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand correctly what the paragraph said. The next time I play chess, whatever my opponent does on their first move (unless they move their king's pawn), before their second move I'm going to declare "Your king has no legal move, so it's stalemate". I'd bet that, no matter how novice they are, they'll understand I'm teasing them.
If the myth is actually different from what I understood, then it would have to be re-added, but reworded in order to make its meaning clearer. BTW, I've never heard of this in Italy. --Army1987 13:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
It happens fairly at the scholastic level here (at young as 5 or 6 years old). (and they only seem to think so near the end of the game.) Last month a kid from my daughter's school aparantly fell for it and got talked into a draw. I had to give a lesson to it to her school's chess club two weeks ago. At a tournament one week ago, a kid tried to claim a stalemate on my daughter that wasn't a stalemate. Bubba73 (talk), 00:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I saw it was readded, in a better form. At the scholastic tournaments around here, for the 4th grade and under, if they think the posisiton is a checkmate or stalemate, they have to raise their hand for the director to confirm it. There are quite a few instances of wrong claims. Bubba73 (talk), 15:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Army1987, actually a move of the queen's pawn or king bishop's pawn also lifts the "stalemate." This section strikes me as silly, even if young beginners do sometimes have this misconception. The definition of stalemate given in the article shows that this misconception is wrong. It also makes no sense, since as pointed out in the text the opening position would be a stalemate if it were true. But if others are OK with it I'm not going to take it upon myself to remove it. Besides, I like Bubba73. :-) Krakatoa 04:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I put that (more or less) in there originally, I think. Someone took it out as being silly, there was some discussion, and it was put back, with a few changes. I wouldn't mind if it was left out. But my 9-year-old daughter has been playing for nearly three years, and I've seen this misconception a few times in her age group. One in her school got tricked into it in a tournament, so I gave a little lesson on it to her school club. I even had someone try to pull it on me at the National High School Championship in 1970. I don't know if they just didn't know the rule, or were hoping that I didn't or didn't notice that they had anothr piece that could move. I don't object to it being taken out. Bubba73 (talk), 04:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to take that paragraph out, because it is "original research" on my part. I have no reference for this, which is just my experience. Bubba73 (talk), 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effect on endgames

There is a section about what effects would the change have if a stalemate would be a win for one side. Why does the "Stalemate positions are possible with a king plus a lone bishop or a lone knight against a king." line appear there? It is not about any of the effects of a possible rule change. I have once deleted it, but it was reverted because "it is true and stalemate is possible with king+bishop or king+knight against king". I know it is possible, but it is irrelevant! We were talking about the effects of possible rule change could have on the endgame. So I suggest again to remove that line. It can only cause confusion. --V. Szabolcs 13:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps, since it doesn't really affect endgame theory much. I put it in there because if one of these positions came up, under the current rules it would be a draw. If a stalemate was not a draw then these positions would not be a draw. Bubba73 (talk), 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, with your latest addition it seems much clearer now. We could continue to argue that it is impossible to force a stalemate in those positions so they would still be a draw.. :) but I think that line is good enough now as it is. --V. Szabolcs 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguate page?

The current lede's final paragraph describes the more general usage of the term, outside of its chess meaning (although they are obviously related). In principle, this should best be handled by breaking out the term into two distinct pages. Now, if we do this, we have three fourfive options as I see it.

  1. Use a disambiguation page, with two links to the general page and to the chess page.
  2. Have the general page be the default, with a "for the concept in chess, see Stalemate (chess)" message at the top (the "otheruses4" tag, I think)
  3. Have the chess page be the default, with a similar "for the general concept..." message at the top.
  4. (addendum) Leave things as they are.
5. Update per User:SyG: Have the chess page be the default with an otheruses link to a similar word such as "Deadlock", "Impasse", or somesuch. See below. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Now clearly I do not espouse (4). Given that currently there are only two possible content pages, I think an explicit disambiguation page is overkill. In lieu of that, this leaves having just the two pages, with the top note about the other usage on both. But here is where I am not clear: which should be the default page? In general, the general language usage page should be in most cases, with the more specific (chess) one referred to in the top message (option 2). But in this case, the chess article is far more developed, and because of this I assume this usage is searched for far more than the general usage. This suggests option (3) is preferable.

I do feel strongly that some action here will improve the encyclopedia, vs. leaving this as it is. But I would like some discussion before I do anything as rash as these. Thoughts? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I favor #3. I agree that the article should be split into chess and the general one. The general one should mention chess, of course. But I think that most people looking up Stalemate will be looking for the chess one and I think that the fact that the bulk of the article is about chess reflects that as the most common use. I think it is a bus silly to have to have the section "stalemate in chess" and have that section be the bulk of the article, even though I think I was the one that did that. So split - definitely! I would like for the chess one to be the main one, however I prefer the title stalemate (chess), which would not make it the main one. All of the chess articles could be made to link to the right one. Bubba73 (talk), 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've thought about it a little more, and changed my mind a little. Option 4 can be ruled out - chess needs to be split out. Option 1 is easy to rule out. A disamb between only two articles doesn't make sense, and usually the artcles in a disambig are unrelated, unlike these two articles. So which of #2 and #3 fit better into the structure of WP? I now think #2 is the best way to go. Stalemate (chess) can be listed at the top under "other uses" and also in the body of the article. It is better to go from general to specific. Anyone looking for the chess part would easily see it at the general article. So I think #2 is clearly the way to go. Bubba73 (talk), 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The way you outlined your thought process made me see something else. If the chess article is the main one, the one that searching on "stalemate" would take you to first, what would the general article be named? The fact that this will be some awkward name (stalemate (word) hehe!) suggests #2 makes sense, even though most readers will have to click again on the other uses link after arriving on the main page. I am willing to wait a few days for more input, but if you are bold, I won't object. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, right. Although the chess article would be bigger, it would not work well for it to be stalemate and the other be stalemate (word) or stalemate (other uses). I think there is no choice but to make the gemeral one stalemate and then have stalemate (chess), just as there is king and king (chess), etc. If someone is looking for stalemate in chess, they will find it easily enough from the general article with "other uses" and it being briefly described in the text. Bubba73 (talk), 18:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of the talk can be moved over, but I don't think history can. But it doesn't matter much. Bubba73 (talk), 18:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Very logical. I concur with your reasoning—stalemate (chess) seems the best way to go. I think it's possible that someone might expand the non-chess usage of stalemate in the future. It's a very important concept in negotiation (labor and politics) and warfare, and these topics could be expanded into good articles on their own. Maybe someday wikipedia will have stalemate (warfare) as well. Quale (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There are nearly 200 links to stalemate, and probably most of them are chess. So those will need to be updated, preferably by someone who knows how to use AWB. Bubba73 (talk), 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no clear opinion on the subject, even if the current consensus of "split and put the general first" sounds very reasonable. Some thoughts:
  • Quale's remark that there could be one day "Stalemate (warfare)" would be a case for a disambiguation page, as it seems there can be more than two meanings. Still we can always create the disambiguation page later.
  • It is a shame that the chess meaning now becomes "second-in-order" just because it has gone into usual language. This is not exactly the same as "king" and "king (chess)", as the word "king" does not come from chess but the other way round.
  • Another idea would be to direct the people searching for the general meaning towards the other words for the same idea, e.g. a redirect to Deadlock. This could be done via a disambiguation page or via another way. SyG (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Good points, things to consider. Bubba73 (talk), 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, especially this redirect to another word altogether. This would eliminate the awkward naming issue. Impasse might be another choice. My kneejerk reaction is this (a to-be-determined alternate word as the otheruses link) is the preferable solution, allowing this page to remain with the same name, but I would like to hear further comments. (I updated the options at the top to reflect this one.) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I sort of favor stalemate (chess), etc, however both the Oxford American Dictioary and Merriam Webster's dictionary list the chess definition first. The latter also gives deadlock as a synonym. Also, both Stalemate and Zugzwang went from use in chess to more general useage. Bubba73 (talk), 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I clarified my position right above your reply: keep this page as named (i.e., without the parenthetical "(chess)") and have an otheruses link to another word (e.g., deadlock). This means that the chess page is the default page as per those dictionaries and per word lineage. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Zugzwang is in a very similar situation. There is some discussion in the introduction about Zugzwang in game theory, but the bulk of the article is about chess, and is in one long section "Zugzwang in chess". Bubba73 (talk), 17:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Once we decide on this article, Zugzwang should be the same way, but it is a simplier case. The only other use is zugzwang (game theory) or zugzwang (combinatorial game theory). Bubba73 (talk), 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree they should follow the same pattern on both articles, whatever it may turn out to be. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There's insufficient non-chess content in both Stalemate and Zugzwang to justify a split. Until someone adds significant non-chess content to Stalemate, I suggest the intro should say:
“ Stalemate is a situation in chess where the player whose turn it is to move has no legal moves but is not in check.

"Stalemate" has become a widely used metaphor for other situations where there is a conflict or contest between two parties, such as war or political negotiations, and neither side is able to achieve victory, resulting in what is also called a dead heat, standoff, or deadlock. Unlike in chess, this usage allows for the situation to be a temporary one and thus ultimately resolved, even if it seems currently intractable.

In "normal" chess, Stalemate ends the game, with the result a draw. Often during the endgame the player who is behind in material seeks stalemate in order to avoid losing the game.

In certain chess variants, such as suicide chess, stalemate is not necessarily a draw. Depending on the variant, stalemate can be a win for either the player with fewer pieces (a draw results if the players have the same number of pieces) or for the stalemated player.

 ”
then change the following heading to "Stalemate in normal chess". Philcha (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(1) I don't think it is necessary so use "normal" in either of those places. "Normal chess" is assumed, unless it is stated otherwise. (2) both Stalemate and Zugzwang have the bulk of the article (all except the intro, references, see also, and external links) in one long section "XXX in chess", which is pretty awkward. So if the articles are not to be split, I think they need to be reformatted to have either a non-chess segment or list it in the intro, and then the remainder assumed to be about chess. Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

With no clear consensus to rename at the moment, I'm going to take out the "Stalemate in chess" section header, and make the bulk of the article about chess. It may be renamed, etc later. Bubba73 (talk), 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)