Chessponge is completely right; chess is like a war. Would it make sense to say it's like the king is hiding? It's like the pieces that attack the kings surrounding spaces are only searching around him, and if the king unveils himself (but knowing that he can't) he'll die. But I guess since the king can't "die" he never really gets "found" and he's not captured or anything. A tie would kind of make sense.

Hole I dug?? This is the internet friend and I don't take it half as seriously as that nor have I even been following all 100 posts like you obviously have.

Perhaps I presumed it because I honestly didn't think that anyone could think that the stalemate rule could possibly be wrong in every single situation?? NAH NO FREAKIN WAY MAN!!!

Well if he does think that then I was wrong and you will be receiving your medal in the mail.

As if such threads even deserve to be taken seriously...

Yes, he was arguing with posts discussing the impact on endgame theory.

I await my medal.

Yep, that's exactly what he thought. And even if he didn't, what would his proposed rule change be? No rule can distinguish between a K+P vs. K stalemate and a K+3Q vs. K stalemate.

Precisely. And it shouldn't seeing as stalemating with 3 queens means the 'winning' side is barely worthy of the half point.

That seems oddly offtopic.

To stay on topic, I think there's nothing more to say. The rule of stalemate has been explained and 'justified'. Ignorant fools who still want to get rid of the rule will probably just remain ignorant fools.

CHESS .COM POSTS RULES===SEE SITE MAP

That seems oddly offtopic too.

Here's what comes to mind in terms of why somebody might keep playing when their opponent clearly has an advantage. To me, it depends upon the relative levels of yourself and your opponent. Sometimes, even though you are down pieces, the moves to put you in checkmate can be tricky, depending upon which pieces are left, and the positioning. There might be a very specific set of moves your opponent must make (with very little margin for error) in order to checkmate you. For an opponent who has demonstrated that they are skillful (or at least moreso than me), and yeah, are able to find the appropriate moves, I would probably resign. However sometimes you don't know if your opponent will be able to find those moves, and it is very likely he might blunder away his advantage into a draw. I would keep playing there. I've been on both sides, where I completely threw away a huge advantage through mistakes, and come back to have my opponent resign after throwing away his advantage.

As they say, "it aint over till the fat lady sings", and at my level, anything can and does happen-the tides can turn really quickly.

Yeah stalemate is counterintuitive.  If you dispensed with check/checkmate rules and just had white try to capture black's king, then if black is in "stalemate" any move he makes he gets captured.  So he should lose.

However there is an exception: in some unusual stalemate positions, the king is in no danger of being captured even if he could move into check.  These positions should just be draws.  See http://www.chess.com/forum/view/more-puzzles/solo-stalemate

Hah! I was trying to think of such a position in my head and convinced myself it didn't exist! Thanks for that one :)

man u still had a chance, im talking about the chess player who can not win.  i think i may be on another planet here,

And yes maartensmit i read it. dont think you get what im trying to say either. and what is scottrf going on about he did not get it as well.

So write an autobiography. Maybe then we'll understand what you're talking about.

i dont think i will waste my time. i cant simplyfy it anymore than i already have done.

When it's not about abolishing the pawn promotion it's about abolishing stalemate. If we simplify the game everytime a coward can't accept the rules, this game will lose all his subtleties.

Then whos wins if there is no stalemate?

A couple of years back I was playing Mike Janiro in a quad at the Portland Chess Club.  I got lucky as black, grabbing the initiative, getting a couple of pawns ahead and then a knight and some pawns ahead.  I'll be darned in my wily opponent wasn't playing for stalemate!  And it nearly succeeded!  Fortunately his try wasn't forced and I found a good move and went on to win.  But it almost gave me a heart attack!

your right is is a chess forum, we are debating parts of the chess game, if you dont like the debate i suggest you should be the one to get out of here, and take your bad manners and closed mind with you, clown.