Interesting history in there. I agreed stalemate as a draw.  

Chess is nothing like war. War have no rule. 

I guess nobody is!

Only in abolishing it.

I wonder if Reb wants it abolished.

I like the half-win version :-)

Me neither.

Dont abolish it-Many campionship chess games finished in stalemate

The game is too drawish as it stands. If manuvering into stalemate is the primary means by which Black avoids losses, then the game is flawed by handing White too great an advantage in its opening lead in tempo. I don't know any reputable game designers who think the solution to one design flaw is to introduce another element of design illogic as compensation. If the only argument against fixing these problems is tradition then I think a better argument needs to be found. Numerous times in the past the game found new life through rules changes deemed too radical by the established masters who had too great a vested interest in the status quo to see clearly the benefits of change. Had they had their way, we would not have the Queen, or castling, or numerous other rules that have enriched the game. Hanging on to stalemate-as-draw strikes me as just another case where tradition is trotted out to defend the status quo, with rhetorically empty cries of "our game is perfect" ringing hollow in the wind while game after game ends in "no determination" at the highest levels.

I find this argument of abolishing stalemate interesting.  I like the idea that it's a draw since the side with the move has no legal moves, but I also like this idea that it's the ultimate zugzwang and should count as a win.  It's hard to make up my mind.

Eliminate stalemate, and endgame theory is out the window.  Almost all of it, since there will no longer be a way to draw a pawn-down ending.  The "opposition" will mean nothing. 

Why fix it if it isn't broke?  And just because a bunch of weak players who are too stupid to avoid stalemating their opponents when up a truckload of material refuse to accept that they are lousy chessplayers and insist instead the rules be changed to accommodate their lack of skills.

There are grandmaster games with stalemates.

Stalemate's not the ultimate zugzwang because you have a legal move in zugzwang and don't have a legal move in stalemate.

The ultimate zugzwang is no matter what legal move you make, you will be checkmated on the next move

People who like stalemate as a draw (at least the ones I come across) rarely say they like it based on tradition. They like it because it is a just outcome for a player who is unable to checkmate with a material advantage or superior position.

A player who leaves his opponent without a legal move has not won because his opponent's king is not under attack. And the stalemated player is not the one to blame for a stalemate position - he didn't make the last move that resulted in the stalemate position.

I'd think the number of GM and amateur games that end in stalemate is quite small. I've played chess for eight years and can't remember either delivering stalemate or being the player who was stalemated.

To change the rules of chess to eliminate such a small percentage of outcomes - especially when the outcome is totally fair - seems silly

Maybe it's also more fair than calling it a draw.

How about: if white stalemates black, white gets half point and black none?

:-?

Nice and thank you for the resource of stalemate rule history.