Stalemate needs to be abolished...

Few games end in stalemate, but the possibility of stalemate influences many endgames.  For instance, A king +two knights vs. a King would be a win for the superior side if stalemate counted as a win.  A King+rookpawn+wrong colored bishop is a draw because of the stalemate rule.  Nimzovitch who advocated changing the stalemate rule, said that chess was like a race in which you had two win by 10 seconds or its a draw.   If you go to the Wikipedia article on stalemate, you will see a summary of GMS Fine and Benko findings on how changing the stalemate rule would affect endgame theory.

FWIW I think it would alter the number of top level draws because endgame theory would be totally different.  Everything from pawn endgames on up.  For example K+P vs K would automatically be .75, never a .5 draw.

Anyway it's nearly the same as saying draw by repetition should award the player with more pieces more points... but we all know the relative value is worthless in a specific position.  If you can't mate, you can't mate.  Your remaining pieces aren't good enough in that position.

And this is a fairly important point it seems, that the argument is based in ignorance of the evaluation of the position according to the rules.  I.e. positions aren't ever evaluated by counting the number of pieces on the board.  Similarly we don't say winning by sacrifice will not earn a full point because in the final position the victor would lose if play continued without a king.  Both players are (or have the opportunity to be) fully aware of the position's evaluation as the game progresses.  To play into a position in which checkmate is not possible should not be rewarded because of something as arbitrary as the number or type of pieces on the board in the final position.

So does the possibility of perpetual and 3fold rep. affect things. Should they be considered .75wins?

If you want to argue it would change top level play for the better by eliminating draws, it seems you have to argue either top level players are unhappy with the current rules (which I think would be a weak argument) or that catering to the perceived interest of spectators would benefit chess as a whole.  I think the latter argument requires a lot of work.

I'm not saying a rule change is something inconsiderable, but I haven't seen an appealing argument for it yet.

I haven't seen a logical reason for it (logical by my rules, that is).

Your rules need changing batgirl.

By the way, the problem with drawish chess isn't that the game is inherently drawish, it's that the players are. Many will still seek out the safest lines under any revised ruleset as well.

"Your rules need changing batgirl."

Well formulate a rules committee to propose and discuss changes.  In the unlikely event that any meet my very high, yet arbitrary standards, I'll pretend to entertain adopting them.

The perpetual check being a .75 win is an interesting thought, since one of the logical arguments against changing the stalemate rule is that it would discourage attacking chess.   Seems like the 3 fold repetition should stay a draw.  For one thing who should get the .75 and who should get the .25.  Many 3 fold repetition draws are in fact equal positions.  I think it would be very hard to fashion a rule for a 3 fold repetition partial win.

Alright Blake that's waffle. If we are forming committee you better be chairman....

The function of most 3 fold repetitions are as a desperate (or rather last option) drawing ability in an otherwise lost position.

No one has suggested that a win should be base on the number of pieces on the board.  There would still be positions with a material inequality where stalemate couldn't be delivered.  Endgame theory currently takes into consideration the possibility of stalemate, so the theory would remain the same, just the result would sometimes be different.  King v. King and pawn would not be an automatic .75 win, some would be a full 1.00 win as they are now.

Well, and some would be a .5 draw when the pawn can be captured :p

What I meant was there are many basic draws that would no longer be a split draw.

But anyway, so the argument is it would make chess more likable / watchable?  IMO It just doesn't seem necessary to spice it up with a rule change.

If it's based on the idea that many evaluations (and even mate) stem from the idea of mobility, and that immobilizing your opponent should then be of some value, then that's a non-arbitrary reason for me, and I'm now willing to consider good reasons for the rule change

I think it would be pointless to take away stalemate. It only gives a form of babying, that the OP claims is already being given. Instead of whining, learning how to look far enough ahead to avoid it would be the answer. If you really dominated your opponent, you should have easily been able to avoid this.

If you wanted to try to make certain rules to take stalemate away, only to help crown a champion, good luck. It would be difficult to expect players to prepare for that unique circumstance, but yet play as it is now otherwise. I realize most games are timed today, but they weren't always and aren't always. I play many untimed games. Untimed games need a way to deal with a tie, regardless of the type.

We could argue the meaning of the terminology, of draw and stalemate. We could argue whether they should be interchangeable terms, but I won't waste my time. If the implied differences between the terms checkmate and stalemate aren't already obvious, regardless of how it happens, then it would certainly be a waste of my time to try to convince you otherwise.

Not all draws are as a result of someone simply avoiding a loss. Both sides may have very well played outstanding, with "best play" resulting in an inevitable draw. Whether it is perpetual check,  3 fold repitition, 50 move rule, insufficient material, the game needs an out, incase one of these situations occur.

You aren't simply suggesting that the rule for stalemate be changed, but also the rule's requirement for a victory in a certain respect. Checkmate is required for a victory, unless you count someone's clock running out, or resigning. If you weren't savvy enough to checkmate them or force them to resign, you didn't truly beat them, you won on a technicality, that I am sure you'll take all day long. It is funny you'd take that, but won't give the technicality to someone you couldn't really beat either. That is hypocrisy in action, if I ever saw it.

I generally don't think much of the victories in short timed games, in which an opponent weasled out a win, due to his opponent running out of time, though he literally had been beaten otherwise. I am not demanding that rule be changed, especially considering the inevitable conclusion, if the game were to have continued. I say this from the wisdom that timed games need a logical conclusion when someone's timer runs out. The beauty of chess is that there are many strategies, complications and results. Otherwise it would be a boring, monotonous game.

I only have one more way of showing the hypocrisy in not thinking your opponent should be able to avoid losing, even if they can't win by an out right fight. If you found yourself in a fight, in which you had offensive capability at the begining, that you lost through the course of the fight, wouldn't you try to avoid losing the fight, resisting in any manner you had left, even if you couldn't really inflict any damage?

If you were a boxer in a match, realizing you couldn't knockout your opponent, you were questioning whether you could match your opponent's punching in the eyes of the judges, and didn't want to quit incase somehow your opponent made a mistake, tired, etc, wouldn't it make sense to fight not to lose, even if you weren't able to fight to win outright, if it were your only hope for a miracle? If you don't think so, your pride is so great, it is not only severely clouds your sense of sportsmanship and competition, but also your judgment in general.

My friend.. dont waste your time explaining the depths of chess to a someone with a catwoman avatar and 1000 rating. :)
Just let her make her big claims copied and pasted from a book out of context, and make huge broad sweeping false claims that she doesnt have a clue about (but of which she is certain) and ignore it.

absolute rubbish.

This isnt even a strawman arguement

"Anyway it's nearly the same as saying draw by repetition should award the player with more pieces more points..."

and then you continue to attack your own arguement.

Where on earth did that come from?

What is so difficult to understand?

This is not about material, this is about violating the spirit of the rules of chess: YOU HAVE TO MOVE WHEN ITS YOUR TURN (even if its to suicide) OR YOUR CLOCK RUNS OUT. IT SHOULDNT MATTER IF YOU CAN MOVE OR NOT, ITS YOUR TURN. Its your own fault you have cramped yourself. I have to put it in captials because everyone is going off on the stupidest of tangents.

No you fool (The part in red)

Stop making things up and putting words into our mouths. Read our posts and dont just shoot off from the hip some random tangent nonsense you come up with.

Its about a contradiction of the rules.

How can you resist a sales pitch like that....

Surely someone will eventually resign. I like it -- chess endings as one big staring contest.