If we change the rules to my variant... (capture the king)
then black should lose that position because he would have to move the king down and whites king will capture it, ending the game.

If blacks king were stuck somewhere else... then it would be for the reason that he cant move and his clock will run out.

The reason: white could still win (because the kings can step into check, and the white king could still capture the black one if black were to place it adjacent to the white king)

It doesn't have to be logical, it just has to be possible.

Well now this seems pretty stilly, considering we award a draw in the case where one side runs out of time but the other side doesn't have mating material.

In this case, there's no way White can win with the lone king, so if we don't award them the draw if Black runs out of time we certainly shouldn't award them the win.

I suppose the draw on timeout rule would also need to be revisisted?

Man you are thick. re-read all my post, esp the parts in blue.
Then go and sit in the naughty corner for 1 hour.

I think maybe you're the one being a little thick here.

Let me clarify: If stalemate is a win for the side who stalemated their opponent, then the draw on timeout rule needs to be modified to consider "any series of legal moves leading to stalemate" instead of "any series of legal moves leading to checkmate".

I'll be the one to take the high road here and stop short of being a patronizing prick.

Actually, it should be "Any series of legal moves leading to a king capture" with the assumption that moving into check is legal.  Basically, a KvK endgame would be sufficient material for either side to win.

Kens_Mom is right. If we accept NamelessMonster's suggestion, than King vs King is not a definitive draw. One king can capture the other.

Whenever the position occured the players would make really fast moves until one's clock run out, or perharps one of them blunders and let his king be captured by the other king. That would be interesting to watch.

If the definition of checkmate was amended to include stalemate, then the draw on timeout rule could be left intact.

It's hard not to be a patronizing prick when you are dealing with a whiny child.

Either learn how to mate or quit chess.

Avoiding stalemate is basic knowledge.

Even amateurs know how to avoid it.

Assuming that it's standard time control (>60min per player), it's probably more likely that a draw would be determined by 50 move rule or 3 fold repetition before either player's time runs out.  However, this doesn't make the situation any less ridiculous.

You my friend have no idea what we are talking about.
This isnt only about 5 queens vs king.

Getting rid of stalemate has many deep, subtle and interesting (probably not your strong suit) ramifications.

Seeing as you have a 1200 rating, I can see why your so convinced though that amateurs can avoid it.

The only time I can see stalemate being a factor, other than in blitz or after a long tiring 4 hour match, is when one player has a queen that he brilliantly offers in repeated moves as he has no king moves.  It does not have to be the result of oversight of a novice type, it could genuinely be after one or two sacrifices by the defending player.  I know its unlikely but I have seen it done.  Such proper use of resources should not be punished, stalemate has its place.

Exactly, so why try to bring about such an upheaval that would ultimately change a completely functional game into something completely different?  Isn't simply creating your own variant a much better and practical alternative than trying to alter something already established?  I'm repeating myself verbatim from the other thread, but if you truly want to get rid of the stalemate rule, creating a variant would be the right way of showing the merits of abolishing stalemate to the "nay-sayers" that think it would ruin chess.

If abolishing stalemate is truly an improvement to the rules, the no-stalemate variant would naturally become more popular than the current chess and eventually replace it as the mainstream chess.  I'm sure that's how the current rules were established centuries ago.

+1

I am not a big specialist in chess variants, playing only Fischer Random and Bughouse occasionaly. But it's an interesting fact that the variant with stalemate=win either has never been created or has near zero popularity. IMHO it means that the idea is not appealing to general chess public at all.

Give me a break.  You are a class D player who twice in a row fell for the Blackburn Shilling Gambit .  You have never faced a player who knew how to play for a stalemate.  The great Samuel Reshevsky fell for stalemate traps twice in his career, and you couldn't begin to fill his shoes.  Until you have side stepped stalemate traps set by an expert like Larry Evans, it is rather presumptuous of you, to say you know how to avoid them.

I think I am going to start a thread called:

"Why players who think they are good, mess up and end games with a stalemate"

Make sure you put it in "off-topic".

No, his plan is to win support by insulting people and generally showing what a stupid child he is.