30 ( +1 | -1 ) Earliest stalemateI do not know if it is known... but, what is the min number of moves to have a stalemate, with the collaboration of the two sides? I mean, the min number of moves to have a mate is 2: 1. f3 e5 2. g4 Qh4#. Is there a method to know the min number of moves to achieve a position of stalemate? If anyone want, we can try it empirically. Just challange me for an unrated game!
25 ( +1 | -1 ) jfdsakai_sim and superblunder
i'm afraid you're both incorrect. the line given by pebbles is correct.. i checked it only a couple minutes after he posted it and it was a very elegant solution. the black queen and the black rooks are both trapped completely
10 ( +1 | -1 ) oops, sorry, pebblesI have an old chess board and the '2' looks like a '7', I had the black queen on h2 instead of h7, brilliant solution.
19 ( +1 | -1 ) pardon my ignorance... 6.Qxd7+ Kf7 for some reason i did: 6.Qxd8+ instead and then wasn't able to explain how to move 7.Qxb7... funny is that i tried 3 times in a row with 6.Qxd8 :((
25 ( +1 | -1 ) Only...nobody would play like that in a game. As sodiumattack wrote, "with the collaboration of the two sides".
Does anyone know the earliest stalemate in a real game?
67 ( +1 | -1 ) Are you kidding?You can't force an early stalemate, or almost any stalemate for that matter. Not with any techniques currently understood in chess.
The answer would depend on your definition of "real game". Some games/openings have super-fast liquidation and head quickly into "proven-drawn" king and pawn endgames where, for example, you may have a king on a8 against a king and a-pawn, drawn by stalemate.
Of course you cannot force such a position and hardly can argue that it's "best play" or a "real game". Are you looking for a historically "serious" chess match (i.e. grandmasters) playing to stalemate? Or something theoretical?
53 ( +1 | -1 ) Hmmm...I can't help but wonder why this amazement with the quickest stalemate is getting so much attention... I have always taught that you should always play to win, even if all you need to win a tournament is a draw... You should never play for a draw...
It's an interesting subject (stalemates), but it's like learning the quickest mate (you'll never see them in a tournament)... Once you learn it, then what?... I would have to agree with "sy or bust", you can't force a stalemate... All these stalemates discussed here are played with flaws...
48 ( +1 | -1 ) hmm...These problems just force thinking differently, when trying to find solutions on chessboard. It's extremly hard to play moves that effectively hangs ones pieces, even if one knows that both sides collaborate. It's nice to see solutions like this from time to time, so ones mind doesn't stick too much to the rules of the "chessicly correct moves". At least it stimulates my creativity...
Kind Regards, Dozer
9 ( +1 | -1 ) ...You'd probably see these games more often if they abolished the draw offer.
7 ( +1 | -1 ) I know brobishkin is not impressed, but ...How about the earliest stalemate with all the pieces still on the board?
5 ( +1 | -1 ) or..Earliest stalemate with 8 Queens on the board? :)
7 ( +1 | -1 ) Stalemate without capturesThis would probably take 12 moves, for example: