How long do you suppose chess players have been arguing about abolishing

Sometimes you look at how your opponent has been playing look at the position on the board and judge that you can play your way into a stalemate.  It brings an attack into a lost cause.  Also, arrogant and careless players would have no incentive to make their games more precise.  After all once you get the numbers it's over.

Two posts above make sense.

Good night.

and why was this thread locked and not the latest one ?

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stalemate-rule-needs-to-be-abolished?page=1 he did this a year ago.

Ensuring you have a winnable position before confidently entering into an endgame is a real delicate art. The elimination of stalemate would take a lot of this need for precision out of the game and would allow players to charge into endings with much more abandon. The beautiful game would be left much, much less beautiful for the change.

Historically, in many countries stalemate was a win for the stalemated side.  In other countries in was a draw.  Only Turkey, in the 18th century allow for a win by the side stalemating.  In the 19th century, most countries started going with the draw, thinking that giving the side that was losing a win simply because of a stalemate was unreasonable, such as now letting a person win on time with insufficient material.  To me a draw seems a fair solution to a stalemate since usually the winning side forces or allows the stalemate unnecessarily, but if that side was winning, his inability to checkmate shouldn't be rewarded equal to checkmate, anymore than a person who is winning but falls into perpetual check shouldn't win.  Actually, it seems to me that there are better arguments for abolishingor changing in some way the 50 move rule or 3 fold rep.   The 50 move rule seems to go through periodic changes anyway.   I wonder just how much stalemate, other than as a tactical tool, really affects higher level chess. I know there have been a few examples, but even those few would have to be statistically insignificant.  And at a lower level, stalemate adds a bit of interest, giving the losing player one last chance to salvage a little dignity.

That's what I mean as a tactical tool -where it may have an important effect is limiting move choices or plans.  As an actual ocurance, I would think it's statistcially insignificant.

If a stalemate counted as .75 win, we would have a more complicated and interesting game.

That was the intent but, unfortunately the rule had a lot unintentional effects on endgame theory.

Intrest and paradox are subjective words, but complexity seems fairly objective.  It seems clear that counting a stalemate as .75 win would add complexity to the game.

I bet the people that are trying to get rid of it are the ones who are the ones giving the stalemate when they are winning.

Yes it did approach sublime. It might not have reached it, but it got real close. :)

Not at the master level.  I don't think GM Larry Kaufman has given Stalemate from a winning position.  I rather doubt Nimzovich ever did.  In order to win a game a chess you have to be about a rook ahead in material.   I think Nimzovich got tired of grinding through tournaments day after day, clearly out playing his opponents, and having a clear advantage; but insufficient advantage to win.  It is hard work to get an advantage against a master (even from a player as strong as Nimzovich), and must be extremely frustrating to have nothing to show for your hard creative work.

I have never stalemated an opponent from a winning position (at least since I was 12 which was 55 years ago).  I have pulled off a couple of stalemate combinations with a rook vs. Queen.

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.

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)