How about la slime?

Not counting those games where you are a pawn ahead.  Or the ones when your positional advantage is crushing.  Or when you checkmate.  Or when your opponent has a heart attack.  Or when their time runs out.  Or their mom comes to pick them up.  Or you bribe them.  Or they get disqualified for cheating.  Or...I think we get the point.

In chess years, "soon" could be another 750-1000 human years.

Games where you are a pawn ahead as generally won by queening the pawn and obtaining sufficient material to checkmate.  A king hunt resulting in checkmate rarely happens in master chess, usually can be avoided by giving up material.  A crushing positional advantage is usually won by cashing in the advantage for material.  Time running out is an exception, but usually happens from a lost position.   I can't remember the last time  I saw a grandmaster lose because his mom came to pick him up.  I will bow to your expertise on bribing your opponent or getting disqualified for cheating.  As to your point, just wear a hat and nobody will notice.

"As to your point, just wear a hat and nobody will notice."

That's a pretty funny retort.

Interestingly, it's been said of chess that the winner is simply the player who makes the next-to-last blunder.  In this case that would be the opponent of the person who just went from a winning position to a drawn one.  The win should then go to the stalemated player?

The hat bit was funny, the rest was suspect.  Games where you are a clear pawn ahead that has an unavoidable potential to promote are resignable and frequently result in a win without demonstrating the ability to checkmate or push it that one last square or two.  Checkmate is a frequent result in all chess, but you specified master chess which makes your first point about material going beyond the pawn spurious - which is it we are discussing, perfect play, master play or general play?  Again a crushing positional advantage can win a game...case in point zugzwang style positions where checkmate or loss of material is inevitable can also lead to resignation therefore a win.  Time running out frequently happens where one side has extra material and is trying to push a win rather than accept a draw given that advantage; you are now specifying "usually" rather than "you have to be..."  Next, a grandmaster being picked up by his mom - at no point in the portion I flippantly quoted (and I understand context, I chose to ignore it) was GM mentioned.  Thank you for bowing to me; having read a few forum posts I know a little about cheating, also from the fact 4 of the games I lost in turn based chess were against opponents who were then banned for cheating, and not from any report I made.  As for bribing, I admit I speculated but in the face of a sweeping statement like "you have to be..." I felt it was artistic license I could be permitted.  Again, the hat bit was funny, although a bit derivative of Coneheads.

The context of the quote that you responded to was Grandmaster players who favored changing the stalemate rule, specifically Kaufman and Nimzovitch.  Normally you have to be about a Rook ahead to deliver checkmate.  Even that sometimes is not enough in the case of a King+2knights vs. king.    There are a few exceptions.  Some of the exceptions you listed I would classify as non-chess (mothers, and disqualifications)

"About a rook ahead" just makes me laugh every time I read it... sorry.  Maybe whoever said that quote meant "a large advantage" because clearly they coudln't have meant you have to literally be up 5 points on the relative value counting system.

Games are won all the time where material is even... so then the relative count is relative... so that "up a rook" means nothing.  Surely it's better to say "a significant advantage" and the given reason as "drawing margin in endgames is large"

Until you can play at an extremely high level, you can't really talk about the drawing margin of many endgames effecting your play or results.  Sure you can repeat what some stronger players have opined... but it seems most top players have never weighed in on it.  And picking up their right for them while bringing up things like "it's frustrating to play well only to draw" falls flat to say the least.

blakey, blakey, I think I indicated in humour that I would take context only if I wanted to.  Is that unfair?  Possibly, but you did the same thing when you suggested that a GM would play on till the humble pawn was promoted to the rook or queen.  The same thing applies to the crushing positional advantage situation where a GM would likely resign also.  The extra rook is not a factor in either evaluation as it does not exist except in potential.  And Chess Moms exist, just as Soccer Moms do.  Disqualifications are breaches of the Laws of Chess and are the equivalent of a red card in football, therefore part of chess.  Again, in case its still not clear, I quoted one line of what you said to have fun with it, not to argue that a rook was usually a winning advantage or not.

I am not sure how Tartakower's quip was relevant to my quote that you cited, since I wasn't talking about going from a winning position to a drawn one, rather I was talking about having an advantage but insufficient to force a mate.

I think there is a distinction between red cards in football which is part of the game, and generally not considered an act of moral turpitude, and being disqualified for cheating.  The red card would be comparable to losing a chess game on time.

Well on football, people have been sent off for racially abusing other players or committing fouls so bad and extreme they have been prosecuted in criminal court for them...cheating is a breach of the rules, a red card is for a breach of the rules - no analogy is perfect but that one is close enough.  Especially for humour at 1.25 AM.  Night night all.

it looked like we got ourselves a troll feeder here, like sungolier to gavinator now we got blake to monster_with_no_name.

Chivalry is dead.

Stalemate rule, soon to follow.

In that case all games should end in a draw, immediately after one player gets a losing position. Because we dont want them to metaphoically commit suicide.

Outside of these recent threads, I've never heard anyone talk about abolishing stalemate.

It's definitely been much more frequent in the past month or two.  Must be because it's summer.   Some people have nothing else to do.

Full Moon Summer?

No, that particular monster has a name.