No, no, no! I don't suggest that all discussion cease. I would never suggest that. Discussing is good (which is why I am here participating in the discussion).

But it's not like a chess committee decided on stalemate rules and everyone had to grudgingly oblige. It survived for the very reason that it made for a better game. The fact that it took over as the rule of the game and has held on for this long is testiment to its contribution to the game. Stronger rules survive, weeker rules become extinct. That is evolution.

Why dont you go ahead and create your own game then and leave the primitive game be?

I agree with Jamie

No.

"The stalemate as a draw rule came into being about the same time as the chess of the mad Queen was invented. "

That seems to be only partially true. The dama rabiosa made a powerful impact on the game and forced some rule changes as she became more and more accepted and she did impact the idea of Stalemate.  I had oulined in #126 that historically there were variations on how Stalemate was treated prior to 1820.  Some areas treated it as a draw, some as a win for the stalemated side and one area (Turkey) treated it as a win for the one delivering stalemate.  The biggest debate, as places were tying to codify chess, was that Stalemate should be a draw and not a win for the one stalemated.  There's almost no historical basis, other than Shatranj which really isn't chess but which did give a win to the stalemating side, to claim that Stalemate should be a win for the one delivering stalemate.  This, of course, has nothing to do with whether Stalemate should be treated as a draw today, but it does disclaim any serious historical precedent. That Stalemate is a draw today isn't some random thing, but something seriously considered during the century or so of directed standardization and codification of the bulk of chess rules and proceedures.
Of course, as the OP (not you at all) chose to do (#145), one can ignore the actual facts and claim anything just because they heard it once or because it sounds good and supports some preconceived conclusion.

i don't understand what's your point. If someone can't do a legal move, what do you want that will happen? That's totally a logical rule and if you can win and do a stalemate i suggest you to train more.

STALEMATE IS A NATURAL PART OF THE CHESS GAME

Time to order a case of Rogaine.

The hairsplitting is making everyone bald.

My understanding is that our modern day game evolved directly from medieval chess which gave a win to the stalemating side.  As you say, this shouldn't be a factor on how we treat stalemate to day, but does create an historical basis for saying that stalemate was a win.

lol...

has someone had to many shandies,,..

Stalemate should stay. It's just another strategic part of the game. Like castling and en passant and all that stuff.

A drunk Irishman?!  I'm amazed.

Haha isn't it Irishwoman?

ahhhhh don't go down that road......... run i tell ya .. run for your lives...... picture of guys in drag will warp your fragile little mind.....

Not at all.  Shatranj, from which chess evolved, was not chess and is often referred to as proto-chess. The movements were different, the pieces were different, ways of acheiving the goal were different. Only when, as you wisely mentioned, chess started to become Chess - with the advent of the Mad Queen - do rules, rule devised to govern this new game, have significance.  Any rules that governed Shatranj didn't form a precedence because they were designed for a game that was different.  Shatranj did give a win to the stalemating side, but that was just a different game with similar traits- important to the development of chess but no more chess than an ape is human.

In Byzantine Chess (which the Moores spread into Spain), Stalemate was a win (a lesser win than mate).  In Spain the Byzantine concept of stalemate, carried over to Modern Chess and was and the rule that Lucena played under.

Byzantine Chess?  That's a really odd variation on Shatranj.  I don't see any real connection with Byzantine Chess and Modern Chess. 

Then he says:

"No, no, no! I don't suggest that all discussion cease. I would never suggest that."

Sounds like a lovely catch 22.... no wonder hes in love with stalemate.