That'll be right!

Yeah, people like the OP here will find some quirk in the rules to complain about.

About a year ago I was pounding a young guy in an OTB endgame he was sure to lose.

He offered what appeared to be a blunder, and I fell for his stalemate during our time scramble.  Now a year later he is rated 200-300 points above me.

Why shouldn't a smart kid (or anyone else) be able to take clever advantage of the stalemate rule.  More power to him.  

The OP to this thread is simply lame.  Give it up, please.

Probably been said, but this one is easy.

The goal of chess is to checkmate. Stalemate is not checkmate.

Case closed.

And lame syllogisms reign supreme among Chessnuts!  No surprises there.  

Had to look that one up.....Deductive reasoning, deceptive argument.

Theres one for the box.

IF Pigs could fly, THEN pork would surely be a low fat food.  Q.E.D.  

Whoever doesnt like the rules of chess should just quit, dont change the rules according to what you want. And btw, Stalemate wont become abolished, it will take to much work to do it, for the whole world I mean.

Notice the title of the thread. It says it NEEDS to be abolished, but it doesn't NEED to. He only wants it to. Nothing bad happens if it doesn't get abolished. So the title of the thread is wrong and the thread should be ignored!

lol k.

I have surveyed many of my casual chess playing friends on this issue over the years.  The general consensus among them is they would take the game more seriously if the stalemate rule was abolished as suggested.  They claim among the unbrainwashed casual everyday citizen, the rule is obviously counter intuitive and plainly wrong.  The object of the game is to trap the king.  Stalemate = trapped king = win.  It's really just common sense.

The guy that wrote the title probably didnt expect this much attention. Itll of been a retortion of a rule that caught him out. But all the same these rule change threads certainly get the attention. An absurd  kinda thing. Ive heard that before somewhere...

Hmmm....

What's next?  This same argument regarding perpetual check?

"Well, my forces were vastly superior and he has to keep moving the same piece back and forth, so clearly, it's a win for me."

I was thinking maybe...128 squares

63 squares is more interesting.

are you stupid?

If you read the whole thread you'll see that all this has been answered many times.

I personally never met a chess player concerned about stalemate rule which indicates that it is not an issue.

I think the two key words there are "casual" and "friends".  Casual because real chessplayers do not seriously want to take out a basic rule like that.  Friends will agree to what their friends say if reasonably put, more often than not.  I am sure you didn't stop to weigh the pros and cons of the argument.  A conversation on the lines of "How stupid is this:  you are surrounded but we draw?" does not count as surveying.  Actually polling a large number of opinions of serious chessplayers would count as surveying.

When I was a beginner I once trapped the king without check and i thought i won.

I've never surveyed my casual (nor initmate) friends for anything ever.