What is a stalemate in chess? A stalemate in the conflict
In the section on the question What is a stalemate “situation”? given by the author LIS-ELIS the best answer is Stalemate is a situation in chess when it is impossible to move any piece without the king being in check. It means a draw (since the 19th century), and in some systems of rules it means a loss or gain for the side in such a situation.
Stalemate - hopeless situation
Answer from Maksr[guru]
when the king has nowhere to go and there is no Shah
Answer from Colt.45[guru]
in chess the situation is a draw.
Answer from Nadezhda Voronina[guru]
A more correct “stalemate” situation... when there is no way out... and nothing can be done...
Answer from Past[guru]
if in chess, then a situation in which the game can either continue indefinitely (there are two kings left and that’s it), or a situation in which one of the players cannot make any move (a king cannot be placed under shif, and there are no other moves left)
Answer from Victoria[guru]
any move by the king or his retinue and he is finished, but there is no check - a draw
Answer from Dima Vilga[guru]
when there is no move in the game of chess and boards, but the game is not lost, since there is no checkmate.
Answer from Donald Stroev[guru]
I agree with previous respondents.
Answer from Oliya Elkova[newbie]
Dear colleagues, A stalemate in chess when the king!! Exactly for him!! there is nowhere to go, because HE (the king) is under attack (check) by the enemy piece. And the game ends in defeat.
In life, a stalemate means that no matter what path you choose, no matter what you do, you will still fail for any reason.
From folklore, you can recall the painting “The Knight at the Crossroads”. Where on the stone it is indicated: if you go left, you will die from an arrow; if you go to the right, you will die from a spear; If you go straight, you will die by the sword. The roads are different, but the result is the same - death. Here Vityaz stands and thinks where to go.
A synonym for a stalemate is hopelessness.
Answer from Yotanislav Osychnyuk[expert]
"Yulia Elkova Student (121) 1 month ago
Dear colleagues, A stalemate in chess when the king!! Exactly for him!! there is nowhere to go, because HE (the king) is under attack (check) by the enemy piece. And the game ends in defeat. "
What nonsense?)) According to this logic, at the beginning of the game there is already a stalemate)) by the way, a stalemate is a draw, not a defeat.
A stalemate is when you want to move, but there is nothing to move, for example, the pawns are up against the enemy, there are no pieces, and any move by the king is in check. Pat and draw.
But “Different roads, but the same result - death” is more of a zugzwang
Answer from Lyudmila Korotaeva[newbie]
dead end
Any chess player knows: stalemate is when the situation has reached a dead end and no actions can bring it out of the dead end. (PAT - translated without any solution, hopeless (stalemate situation). | Explanatory dictionary).
There are two wars going on in the world right now that are attracting everyone's attention - in Israel and Ukraine. And although these wars are completely different - in one the Arabs fight with the Jews, and in the second the Slavs kill the Slavs - they have one thing in common: both of these wars have reached a dead end, they have reached a stalemate...
Better to see once than hear a hundred times. It is better to visit the place than to read contradictory materials from obviously biased (if not naive) journalists from various media outlets.
I've been to Israel twice. Once briefly, but the second time I traveled all over the country, one might say, far and wide. It was then that it became absolutely clear to me that there was no solution to the Palestinian-Israeli problem. Pat. Unless, of course, we consider the complete destruction of one of the parties as a “solution”...
Our guide on our trip to Israel was a Jew who had emigrated from Russia ten years before. Of course, he did his best to justify the very fact of the creation of the State of Israel and all its subsequent policies. But he did it somehow hesitantly, often looking down...
My impressions of Israel were the most disgusting (except for the impressions of historical monuments). As it turned out on the spot, the Gaza Strip is far from the only reservation on Israeli territory: Jews have created several such reservations, surrounded by barbed wire with military checkpoints, where the Arab population is driven. It is very difficult for the Arab population to leave these reservations. For example, to visit their relatives in other countries, Palestinians must use only an airplane, and even then not directly, but through the UAE. Naturally, the majority of the poor Palestinian population simply cannot afford such “pleasures”. Well, why is this not a concentration camp for Palestinians? But these concentration camps were created by Jews, who not so long ago, by historical standards, themselves suffered massively from German concentration camps...
In the last two weeks alone, the Israelis have exterminated about one and a half thousand Palestinian people, the vast majority of them civilians. And this is what the Jews do, who are still crying to the whole world about their Holocaust! But the Arabs will also never forgive the Jews for this long-term Palestinian “Holocaust”...
Yes, Palestinian militants regularly fire at Jews. And they will fire at the last Palestinian who knows how to hold a weapon in his hands. Because the fact remains: the Jews, with the help of the world's most sophisticated provocateurs - the British, brazenly entered ALIENS territory, seized it by force, unceremoniously expelled the indigenous population from it, which they methodically destroyed and continue to destroy to this day.
Whether someone likes it or not, by the middle of the twentieth century the geopolitical map of the world had developed exactly as it did. And any territorial claims inevitably led to bloodshed. The fact that two thousand years ago the Jews in what is now Palestine had their own “kingdom” and therefore needs to be restored sounds incredibly stupid in modern world. How many people once had something? After all, there were the Byzantine and Roman empires, there was Kievan Rus etc. It was, but overgrown with the past.
It also sounds stupid that the Jews did not have their own state before Israel, and therefore it was necessary to create it. The Kurds, the Gypsies and many others don’t have it either. Yes, this is a historical injustice, but, alas, it cannot be corrected without infringing on the interests of other peoples.
The creation of Israel on foreign territory was a mistake (or rather, as already said, a deliberate provocation of the British) and this must finally be admitted. Therefore, Israel has no future. And this is clear to anyone who has visited Israel in detail, like me. Hatred and danger are simply in the air there, you feel them with all your senses. Arab world will never come to terms with the occupation regime called “Israel” on its territory, and Arabs and Jews will beat each other to the last man. Pat.
I have also been to Ukraine several times. In the western regions adjacent to Poland there has always been a feeling of rejection, to put it mildly, of everything Russian. But in eastern regions, in Odessa, the feeling that you are at home, that you are among your own people has always been there. These parts of Ukraine were contrastingly different, artificially and forcibly united. And such a contradiction could not help but come out sooner or later - so it did. The abscess that had been ripening for decades now burst, its pus began to flow... But, instead of coming out and bringing relief, this pus spread inside, provoking general blood poisoning and the inevitable mortality of the organism called “the state of Ukraine.”
Now the situation in Ukraine has reached a stalemate. The Pindos, of course, will not let go of the happily captured prey from their teeth at any price: using their puppets, maidan crests, they have quietly crept up, finally, to the very southern “underbelly” of Russia. From here, it will be much easier for them to gnaw at their long-term enemy, Russia, than ever before. Of course, they will not allow their Poroshenko-Tymoshenka proteges to enter into any negotiations on federations-autonomies of the original Russian eastern territories of Ukraine. It is clear.
On the other hand, Russia cannot allow its friendly eastern lands of Ukraine, populated predominantly by Russian-speaking people, to be forcibly “Americanized.” Otherwise, Russia will suffer enormous damage, both in terms of economics and geopolitics, and in terms of international prestige... And this means that the fighting militia will continue to receive material and personnel support from Russia. The solution to this problem, alas, is also not visible, unless, of course, we consider the third “solution” world war. Pat.
Why are such stalemate situations not uncommon in the modern world? Simply because there is no single world “judge”, a powerful international organization that could fairly resolve such controversial issues, could forcibly “pacify” raging aggressors, could prevent such stalemate situations.
For example, what do reasonable people around you do if they see a bloody fight to the death between two angry men? Of course, they immediately take them away. And it doesn’t matter which of the fighters is right and who is wrong. First you need to separate the fighting madmen so that they do not kill each other, and only then wisely and legally understand their problem.
The UN was originally supposed to be such a “pulling away” body. But... it did not live up to these hopes. The UN of recent times is a completely discredited organization. Moreover, it clearly serves primarily the interests of the United States. The world has seen this in many examples: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and other countries in whose conflicts the UN has shown itself to be either indifferent or even destructive.
We need a new one world organization, operating on carefully developed laws common to all countries. First of all, this international organization must categorically prohibit by law the violent geopolitical redivision of the world: almost all countries have territorial claims, and the presentation of such claims inevitably leads to military conflicts. But we have already repeatedly observed a peaceful solution to such problems in the examples of the voluntary disintegration of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the disconnection of the Baltic countries and other former Soviet republics from the USSR, the reunification of East and West Germany, the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation and some other examples.
Such issues, undoubtedly, should be resolved exclusively through referendums held among the population living in the territory in question and under the closest supervision of international observers. And the decisions of such referendums should be binding on all parties.
Likewise, any coups d'etat, any violent overthrow of governments. A change of power should only be carried out by re-elections, which again should be initiated by nationwide referendums, the procedure of which should be legally prescribed and actually accessible to the population dissatisfied with the authorities.
Violators of all these international laws should be punished very strictly - from global sanctions (which for some reason are only being used on Russia) to direct enforcement military force from the international peacekeeping contingent.
And the Earth is round... And twice two equals four... After all, what I write above is just as indisputable, just as understandable to any reasonable person. And yet, nothing like this is happening in the world, nothing in the world is changing for the better. Instead of all this, the world is mired in more and more wars, more and more stalemate situations are created, sometimes threatening even the very existence of humanity (let’s not forget about the presence of a huge arsenal nuclear weapons, capable of smashing this unfortunate planet of ours into dust several times).
Sometimes whole schools of whales wash ashore and die. Science still cannot explain this phenomenon of whale self-destruction. The human brain is disproportionately taller and more developed than that of whales - since this particular brain was able to invent spaceships, submarines, computers and other complex things. But really, this brilliant human brain will not be able to protect itself from the self-destruction that is inevitable with such unreasonable geopolitical behavior? Pat...
Fans of chess games are well aware that the result of rivalry can be not only the well-known one, but also another, much more ambiguous result, which is called a “stalemate.” This is a position in a chess game when the king is not in check, but there is no possibility for the pieces to move. and from some times means a draw in the classical game of chess.
Why are there no winners and losers?
How does a stalemate occur in chess? As a result of previous moves (in particular, the move made by the opposing player), the player who has the right to move cannot take advantage of this opportunity, since there are no options for moving the pieces that do not violate the rules of the game. At the same time, the king is not in check, which means no one wins. As a result, a hopeless situation arises, there are no losers and winners, but there are also no moves.
This situation was resolved and designated in the 19th century as a draw, which is quite fair. It is precisely this interpretation of the stalemate that is enshrined in the global code chess rules(FIDE). However, earlier in different countries the world, other options for interpreting the emerging impasse were proposed. Let's look at some of them.
When was a stalemate not considered a draw?
For example, in the Middle Ages in many European countries, as well as in the Middle East, the winner was the one who made the last move in a chess game. In the 15th-18th centuries in Spain, this situation also brought victory to the last player to move, but its price was lower than the classic win. As a result, the winner received not the whole, but only half of the legitimate prize.
There were, however, other interpretations of this outcome of the game. The player who put a stalemate (that is, created a stalemate) was considered a loser. These rules were in force in the 9th century in India, in the 17th century in Russia, and in England they were applied until the 18th century.
Parties were announced in Italy and France, and from the 19th century became generally accepted rule Worldwide.
“Our whole life is a game,” or About stalemate situations outside the playing field
However, it is not only in chess that the term “stalemate” is used. This is a fairly common expression today, applicable to various life situations. It can be used in the most different areas life, starting with love/family relationships, ending with politics and economics.
Here are a few typical examples when a stalemate occurs in life.
Pat in his personal life
What does a stalemate in a family mean? Cases often arise when, during life together the relationship reaches a dead end. However, it is impossible to come to a decision or find a way out of it. For example, a classic plot: a housewife wife takes care of the house and raises children, the husband drinks, but brings money to the family. Their relationship has long been based only on the children, but they cannot separate, because children need both a father and a mother, and the woman herself cannot provide for the family. On the other hand, the offspring grow up and observe a constantly drinking father and an unhappy mother. It’s worse to get a divorce or continue to “artificially support family life"? Often in such cases, women feel the hopelessness of their situation, but they cannot solve anything. It looks like a stalemate, but with a strong desire it can be resolved.
There are also less tragic examples of such situations. The simplest one is that a girl is courted by two young men. One is promising, promising and stable. She is in love with someone else, but she is not sure of his constancy and his ability to achieve success. What to choose - confidence and comfort or love with obstacles? Here you have a stalemate. This is the inability to make a choice (move).
Stalemate in economics
Another example from the field of economics. Disproportion in the Russian venture market by sector and the ratio of free money and real investments. Most of the investors' funds are invested in quick-payback Internet projects (up to 70%), which do not have much potential in the long term. At the same time, the biotechnology/pharmaceuticals sector, the most attractive in terms of importance and growth rates, receives only 15% of the investments available on the market, and other segments account for even less available money. At the same time, there is a shortage worthwhile projects and companies in which funds could be effectively invested. As a result, a stalemate arises - there is an overabundance of free Money along with a lack of projects for their investment.
Stalemate situation in the political arena
This term is often used in relation to various political events. So, for example, it happened with the rally and the situation that arose in Ukraine. The situation that developed on the Maidan turned out to be especially noteworthy. The protests, which began with support for European integration, grew into a mass movement as a result of the beating of protesters by the police. The movement began to gain momentum due to the growth of dissatisfaction (which is not surprising). But it was no longer possible to curl up and leave, otherwise it would be a defeat and in the future we would have to “hide from the police in any peaceful situation” (according to sociologist Andrei Bychenko). However, the authorities could not simply dismiss Zakharchenko and start criminal cases against the Berkut fighters (who beat the students). So the confrontation continued, leading to numerous deaths and giving rise to what we have on this moment. The situation is a stalemate, but it was possible to get out of it with fewer losses with competent and thoughtful behavior on the part of the authorities.
Conclusion: don’t create stalemate situations
There are many examples when a dead end occurs in a game or in life. And if in chess it’s just a draw, then a stalemate in life can turn into a much sadder, and sometimes even dangerous, outcome. In personal life, a feeling of hopelessness can gradually develop into a protracted depression, in the economy it can lead to losses financial resources and imbalances in a particular market, in politics - to confrontation between the people and the authorities, to a decrease in the authority of the government, as well as numerous victims (as has happened more than once not only in Ukraine, but also in many other countries).
Therefore, it is so important to always have a choice and not allow a stalemate to arise when there is no way out and it is impossible to continue the “game”.
In a person’s life there are many difficult and sometimes hopeless, dead-end situations. And often people don’t know what to do or how to get out of the deadlock.
Today, on the website of psychological assistance in difficult life situations website, you will read the recommendations of a psychologist and learn how to find a way out of critical, seemingly hopeless situations in life.
A hopeless situation - a dead end in life
People lead themselves into most of life's dead ends. And most often, any hopeless situation is only regarded as such by the person himself, because... at this critical, stressful moment, he cannot fully, to the fullest extent, use his intellect, knowledge and skills.
When a person is stressed, he thinks stereotypically and is emotional—irritated or depressed.
What is a stalemate, a hopeless situation in a person’s life?
A psychological impasse, or a hopeless situation in life - also called a stalemate - is when a person cannot make the right life choice, is unable to find a solution to a problem, or generally does not know what to do under any difficult or critical circumstances.
He is stressed, depressed or neurotic at this moment, so he cannot think and act adequately to the situation “here and now”.
What to do if you find yourself in a critical, difficult life situation?
The first thing you need to do in a crisis, deadlock situation is to understand in advance that there are no hopeless situations.
You can always find a way out of current circumstances and make your choice.
Prevention of crisis and hopeless situations in life
To prevent crisis situations - so that there are as few of them as possible in life - you need to constantly expand your worldview - make a wider model of the world, a map of reality.
And not to live constantly in stagnation, in your “comfort zone”.
In other words, to avoid serious dead-end situations in your life, you need to constantly engage in personal growth and self-development.
“Constantly” means all your life. Then you won’t have to look for a way out of the dead end - you simply won’t get into it.
How to find a way out of a hopeless situation
If you ALREADY find yourself in a dead end, crisis situation, then you need to get out of it immediately. First of all, by relieving stress and changing your attitude towards the problem itself.
How to find a way out of a dead-end, hopeless situation?
- You can relieve stress almost instantly, for example, by relaxing with the help of psychotraining, deep breathing, or changing your negative thoughts about the problem, to more positive or neutral ones;
- Once you normalize your thinking and emotions, you will be able to assess and adequately characterize the problem (often, only by changing your attitude, the problem disappears on its own);
- If you have few obvious choices, for example only two, you can rationally and adequately (without nerves) expand your worldview and see other possibilities for solving the problem;
- If all choices are evil, then the lesser of several evils is chosen;
- If you can’t get out of a hopeless situation on your own, seek help...
Help in difficult life situations
When people cannot get out of life’s impasse on their own—they are stressed, depressed, “on edge”—then they need professional, psychological help in crisis situations.
After removing the neurotic symptoms, it will be possible to find a way out of almost any hopeless situation.
Consult online psychologist-psychanalyst Oleg Vyacheslavovich Matveev
In chess, stalemate is a situation on the board in which neither player can make a move according to the rules, despite the fact that the king is not in check. However, there may be another situation in which the piece of one of the opponents becomes frenzied, threatening the king. In the worst case, this leads to checkmate, in the worst case, to perpetual check. This is exactly the situation that has arisen in Ukraine. Now Petro Poroshenko is de facto not under checkmate, but the situation in the country has been teetering on the brink of stalemate for several weeks. First of all, the reason for this is the collapsed economy, which is saved from sliding into the abyss of default only by manually holding the hryvnia exchange rate. In addition, the punitive operation in the southeast of the country turned out to be a disaster for the punitive forces, humanitarian catastrophe for two huge regions and the categorical reluctance of the overwhelming majority of residents of the South-East to remain part of Ukraine. To put it bluntly, Petro Poroshenko has few ways out of this situation. Moreover, any of these paths could result in disaster for political career president. Of course, he is now actively looking for ways to break the stalemate with the least losses, but this search is significantly complicated by the fact that Poroshenko categorically does not want to make concessions. On September 5 in Minsk, when signing a truce, Poroshenko stubbornly refused to withdraw Ukrainian troops outside the LPR and DPR, and agreed to the decentralization of power, but only in some areas, which naturally does not suit the authorities of Novorossiya. That is, Petro Poroshenko does not want to make concessions and compromises. Even for the sake of your own salvation. It is likely that Pyotr Alekseevich is waiting, since the truce was signed after all, for changes in personalities in the government of Novorossiya. It is possible that Kyiv is counting on the fact that in the near future the oligarchs of Donbass, who are now hiding, will appear on the scene, and it still hopes to come to an agreement with them. Fortunately, Boris Kolomoisky initiated the practice feudal fragmentation Third millennium. Of course, the term “patrimonial principality” will not appear in Ukraine; instead, the term “confederation” is quite possible, and Dnepropetrovsk can already lay claim to the title of such a confederal republic of Kolomoisky. There are still Akhmetov, Firtash, Yaroslavsky and other oligarchs in Ukraine who will not refuse to receive entire estates for their use. The problem is that the residents of Novorossiya will not be satisfied with such an end to the war. And here we come to the most difficult thing for all parties to this conflict. The 21st century is primarily the age of information. Television can be controlled, muted and turned off. But it is impossible to control the Internet. Everyone knows about what happened in Odessa and how exactly the Ukrainian punitive forces “liberate” the residents of the DPR and LPR. Moreover, confirming the notorious “bullet is stupid”, the shells destroy civilians without taking into account their political preferences. To expect that the residents of Novorossiya will meekly agree to live in a “united and indivisible” Ukraine is at least naive. Any attempt by the authorities of Novorossiya to retreat and agree to a federation will result not only in a moral defeat for politicians, which they could survive, but also in serious unrest among the population of the South-East in general and the shelled and armed militia in particular. Thus, the militia, in the event of a stalemate in signing the federation, will become a rabid figure not for the enemy, but for its own king. How Novorossiya should develop should be decided by its population in a referendum. After four months of punitive operations, Kyiv and Ukraine will have to come to terms with the loss of Novorossiya. The only question is, within what boundaries will the new thing leave Ukraine? public education. Petro Poroshenko’s emphasis on the fact that only a truce has been signed with the militia confirms analysts’ forecasts that the war will continue very soon. Even now, after orders to cease fire, both sides of the conflict are clashing in skirmishes. It is unlikely that Kyiv will be able to greatly strengthen its positions, but the truce will provide an opportunity to gain fresh people, receive an IMF tranche, weapons. Novorossiya will do the same. Most likely, the militia will stubbornly strive to expand its borders to Kherson and Odessa in the South and to Kharkov in the East. Of course, this will come at a cost. However, Kyiv most likely will not allow the militia to get by with little bloodshed, since it doesn’t care at what cost to save territorial integrity- after all, only it can serve as a guarantee of subsequent financial injections from abroad.
