From: Pieter Stouten CHEMSCI5 dmpc com> Date: 9 oct 1995 Subject: Re: King in check At 12:05 95/10/09, Jeff Mallett wrote: >I >quoted the definition of stalemate for you from the official rules of chess >for the U.S. What more do you want...? > My only point is that the word stalemate is a misnomer to say the least if it does not necessarily refers to a situation where the king cannot avoid being mated. Of course, I bow to higher authority if the USCF endorses the use of misnomers or redefines the meaning of words so that they become misnomers. >>Is there a position possible in chess where one cannot make any moves at >>all not even moves that would put one's own king in check? > >A move is illegal or legal. > Yes, well, there are more colours than black and white. I just distinguished between legal moves, illegal moves (moves that are in principle legal for a given piece to make but prohibited by the actual situation on the board), and impossible moves (involving movements that that piece cannot make). I have nothing against calling a move either legal or illegal, but when discussing the concepts at issue a more detailed distinction may be useful. Anyway, let me elaborate on the phrase you quote. I am referring to *having* moves rather than *making* moves. So my question is, is it possible in chess to have a situation where one does not have a legal move at all (i.e., where all one's remaining pieces are blocked) AND that does not involve putting one's own king in check? I guess all these points are really moot as Shogi does not have the concept of stalemate. -- Pieter Stouten || Nothing shocks me; Computer Aided Drug Design Group || The DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company || I am a scientist! P.O. Box 80353, Wilmington, DE 19880-0353 || Phone: +1 (302) 695 3515 || -- Fax: +1 (302) 695 2813 || Internet: stoutepf chemsci5 dmpc com || Indiana Jones