You are missing the "life is not fair", and stalemate represents that!
Why not capture the King?
Sort:
RetiFan wrote:
You are missing the "life is not fair", and stalemate represents that!
It makes the game more interesting. There is that small chance you might catch out your opponent who starts getting careless! And, likewise for the guy with more material, it gives a little bit of a challenge to what would otherwise be a dull plod to checkmate.
I'd also like to point out that this topic has been raised about three million times before, you may find a wealth of information if you just look for it.
It wouldn't lead to far fewer draws. Stalemates happen very infrequently and are usually the result of a rookie mistake. The higher the level of play, the less you see them.
Stalemates, while also considered a draw, are very different from a normal draw. The 'normal' kind of draw would happen just as often as it does now.
Edit: Same applies to the check rule. Whether check 'exists' or no, being in a position to capture the king would be considered the exact same thing by a chess player. Being in a position to capture the king would always have to be blocked as if it were a check. You could change the name to anything you like (or remove it all together), it wouldn't change the way people dealt with their king being under fire.
Because it's kind of pointless for the game to continue once checkmate has been achieved. It's like letting the home team bat in the 9th inning when they're ahead. They've already won, so no need to continue the game.
Stalemates aren't just when a beginner makes 15 queens and fails to mate... they're an integral part of endgame theory and so middlegame strategy also. Stalemate as a draw makes the game much richer/complex IMO.
To a lesser extent, I guess the rule you can't move into check too. It forces you to play the game out all the way.
Stalemates are also why K&P without opposition isn't winning (before the pawn is on the 5th).
waffllemaster yazmış:
Stalemates aren't just when a beginner makes 15 queens and fails to mate... they're an integral part of endgame theory and so middlegame strategy also. Stalemate as a draw makes the game much richer/complex IMO.
To a lesser extent, I guess the rule you can't move into check too. It forces you to play the game out all the way.
True to the last word, still Nigel Short does hate stalemates especially when Carlsen devilishly goes for it 
ivandh wrote:
It makes the game more interesting. There is that small chance you might catch out your opponent who starts getting careless! And, likewise for the guy with more material, it gives a little bit of a challenge to what would otherwise be a dull plod to checkmate.
I'd also like to point out that this topic has been raised about three million times before, you may find a wealth of information if you just look for it.
I didn't find much with a quick search. I guess I need to work on my Googling.
I understand that stalemate makes certain positions more interesting, but adding just about any other arbitrary rule would make certain positions more interesting too.
Have people worked out whether all the common drawing positions (insufficient material, opposite colored bishops, etc) would still be draws if moving into check weren't illegal?
Worth noting is that stalemate still makes a difference, even at the top levels. Yesterday's Radjabov-Grischuk game ended in stalemate, for instance. It makes endgames even more complex, which is not a bad thing.
ivandh wrote:
To name a few:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stalemate-rule-needs-to-be-abolished
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/history-of-stalemate-rule
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stalemate17
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-can-i-stalemate-when-i-have-most-of-my-pieces-and-the-opponent-had-king-only
Thanks!!
ectp wrote:
ivandh wrote:
It makes the game more interesting. There is that small chance you might catch out your opponent who starts getting careless! And, likewise for the guy with more material, it gives a little bit of a challenge to what would otherwise be a dull plod to checkmate.
I'd also like to point out that this topic has been raised about three million times before, you may find a wealth of information if you just look for it.
I didn't find much with a quick search. I guess I need to work on my Googling.
I understand that stalemate makes certain positions more interesting, but adding just about any other arbitrary rule would make certain positions more interesting too.
Have people worked out whether all the common drawing positions (insufficient material, opposite colored bishops, etc) would still be draws if moving into check weren't illegal?
No, nothing as broad as opposite color bishops, but there are many technical draws that rely on stalemate to salvage a draw... k+p vs k is an easy example.
White to move wins. If it's Black to move he can draw.
Scottrf wrote:
And here's Karpov and Roman explaining it.
Good video. I briefly clicked through it, but didn't notice a quick tip. A quick and dirty rule is the key squares (say in my post #14) are d5, e5, and f5. If black can occupy one of them with his king, it's a draw. If white can occupy one of them, he will win.
So then we can probably already tell, if white moves his pawn first, as a beginner is probably apt to do, the key squares move closer to black and away from white. One square forward and the key squares are now d6, e6, and f6 and black will draw easily (provided he knows the technique shown in the video).
It felt a bit weird having a world champion explain something so simple though...
Yeah, haha.
A few times maybe too fast for a beginner too... he makes a move and we hear:
Roman: "but if e6 then g6 and the next move is g7 with an easy win"
Karpov: "yes"
Roman: "so we don't do that"
lol 
The candidates tourney commentary too... sometimes Lawrence or Nigel seem to explain something elementary as if it's important... then all of a sudden they throw out this amazing sequence of moves they'd apparently been thinking about that I had no idea existed... and 5 moves before the point one of them goes "oh and b5 [click, click, click, click, click] and like he said Nb5 wins lol.
I'm thinking wow, Nigel is tons better than Lawrence... but Lawrence is definitely tons better than me.
Basically, the rules of check and stalemate seem pointless.
Wouldn't chess be more interesting and make more sense (and also have far fewer draws) if you won by simply capturing the enemy king? You would be allowed to move your king into check, but you would instantly lose if your opponent recognized that he could capture your king. Stalemates wouldn't happen because you'd have to move your king into check and the person with the better position would get to capture your king and (justly in my opinion) win the game.
So what am I missing ?