It would have been funnier if you said to yourself...nah...it wouldn't matter...it will be an off topic, regardless of whether it is put into the general chess discussion forum...

Would it offend you if I put it into general chess discussion?

I hope it does. That is where I will put it, if I decide to make it. You could try to argue it isn't relevant there, but it is clearly a legitimate topic for general chess discussion.

This is a bit contrived of you.
Your saying "go off, invent your new rules, play it on your own, leave us alone, dont mention it again, and *when* its popular then we'll play it"

Yes, under those conditions its not gonna catch on though is it.

If the rule is better it should be the main version, not a varient.

Why are you so afraid of this... why cant the stalemate chess be the variant.
If the new variant replaces it, original chess wont disappear into the ether.

It will be funnier if you put it in off-topic.

It would be more heavily trolled...not necessarily funnier...

Or all stalemate threads could be switched to "help and support".  They strike me as a cry for help.  Personally when I wanted locked up I just started drawing crazy diagrams and acting paranoid, I didnt do anything really crazy like tamper with the immutable laws of the universe, such as stalemate.

Dont make foolish comments, and I wont call you fool. Simple.

If you read over the lengthy, detailed, insightful, witty, world changing, precice, genius magnum opus in post #16 (I have to also give credit to blake for some of its contents)

(which was published by the worlds most prestigous and widely read chess magazine)

and compare it to an idiots post (say #18)..
I think youll find it in your heart to forgive me.

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm trying to say, but no one is afraid of change here.  However, what you're suggesting is a huge change: you're trying to change the core game play rules of chess.  That's on the level of trying to change how the pieces move, or changing where the starting position of the pieces are.  All I'm saying is that you should slow down, because otherwise you'll face so much opposition that you won't make progress.  You'll only make new enemies and make the situation worse.

I'll ask again:  Isn't simply creating your own variant a much better and practical alternative than trying to alter something already established?

People tend to prefer choices and deciding for themselves...

Originally stalemate was a win, so if we're going with established rules we should have stuck to that one. Arguing for the established rule because its established is.... Ill let you finish the sentence.

I should also add that you wouldn't necessarily know if no-stalemate is better than the current rules until you've tried it, which is another reason to just start your idea out as a variant.  Changing the official rules of chess, only to revert it back again because it didn't work well is not very efficient.  Test it out as a variant with a good number of people for a few months and see if you still like having no stalemate.  There's no harm in that.

(to their eternal shame)

Like I said, the rules probably changed because the current one became more popular than the original one.  You should do the same: make no-stalemate popular.  Making your own variant is not a bad place to start.

Also, I'm not saying that the established rules should not change because it's established.  I'm saying that you haven't provided sufficient reasons to warrant this huge change to a system that works perfectly fine.

If it isn't broke, why try to fix it?

If you don't know how to use it, I suggest reading the instructions...

He knows how to use it.  He just doesn't like how it works, so he wants to change it.

If someone finds something user friendly, they won't want it changed. The reason anyone wants the stalemate gone is because, they can't mindlessly try to play totally offensively, without consequense.

That's actually funny, that they don't realize their own play is too offensive for them....lol

To all of you who want the stalemate gone, you are offended more by your own play than the rule. If your play never put you in the situation, you wouldn't care.

Don't you see what your tactics, you put on a pedistal get you, without the other parts of chess that are required? You play in an unbalanced manner.Try some defense and positional play.

Using a less narrow minded strategy, so you can see all of the benefits of prophylactic chess thinking while you play, is far better than using one facet of chess, that will not get you past this simple problem.

Yeah, you are right again, with 60 min most of them could claim 50 move before time is over.

However, it makes me wonder, if a game of 15 min per player wouldn't look like bullet chess from the begining. After all, a player that saves 3 min more in the middle game could run the oponent out of clock in otherwise drawn endgames.           

The stalemate rule is like Obamacare: Nobody likes it, but we're stuck with it...... for now. However, there does seem to be something inherently unfair about the players in these situations getting equal credit for the game. Kens_Mom's idea of trying it as a variation is interesting. But it's hard to envision lots of players flocking to the "no stalemate division" at tournaments.........

Monster,

If I do not like the no-hands rule in soccer, I may opt to start playing soccer with the house rules "one is allowed to touch the ball."  What I won't do is to go on soccer.com forums to try to spearhead a change to allow hands to touch the soccer ball.

Stalemate is one of the defining characteristics of chess in the same way that the no-hands rule is a defining characteristic of soccer.  Change it, and the game is no longer the same.  In other words, get rid of stalemate, and the game is no longer chess.  This is why no one wants this aspect of the game to change.  It's not about people being "afraid of change," or not wanting to change something that is already established "because it's established."

Since you're basically suggesting to make a different game out of chess, the reasonable thing to do is to simply create that different game without altering chess.  There is no necessity to change chess itself if your version of the game can be brought to reality without altering the integrety of chess.  But you seem to think that the official rules of international chess must be changed, and I'm still not sure why.  The offical rules of chess won't prevent you from playing any other variant of chess as far as I can tell, though you obviously cannot say that you are playing "real" chess if you are playing no-stalemate chess (and perhaps that's what you want to change).  That's not a serious issue, however, and it's definitely not a good reason to change the offical rules.

Like I said, creating a variant may eventually lead to mainline chess adopting the no-stalemate rule if it is indeed a good rule, so I don't see what the problem is (I guess I'm asking the same question for the third time).

EDIT: You asked why it can't be the official rules that become the variant.  The reason is that it takes much less work and agony to have no-stalemate chess as the variant.  Since they would both accomplish the same thing, why not choose the path of least resistance?  This is why I say that creating a variant is more practical than trying to change existing rules.

The only credible variation I have seen in chess in the time I have been playing (34 years) is the 960 one.  The game as it stands is a beautiful thing.

That's true, mainly because it changes the game quite a bit.  I'm not saying that such a variant won't be accepted by the chess playing community, but the players will first have to get used to and ease into this "new" chess before they even consider it a serious variant.  Accomplishing that would require a lot of time.  We may not even witness it in our lifetime.