I've for years wondered about the Stalemate rule. Here's why:

1) Chess is a competitive game, Victory being the main Objective besides fun etc.

2) Rules of Chess contain the "Forced to Move on every Turn" rule.

3) Stalemate breaks the "FtMoeT" rule. Why not Zugzwang instead!?

4) There are too many draws in Master level chess, whose purpose is to determine a winner!

5) Checkmate ends the game Before a King is captured. This encourages beginners to add visualization to the board more, and saves time from more experienceds. Yet we all know, the King WOULD get captured if the game continued. The checkmate rule, of ending game before capture, may have confused players to conclude stalemate. Eg the King is never captured, so stalemate.

6) Rules of Chess contain the "Impossibility to 1 turn suicide with King". This is to help beginners play longer games. It may be another reason for confusing players to add the Stalemate rule. King suicide could well be added to games, however; if you touch+moved your King to suicide or ignored a king attack, why not lose the game instantly after that king's capture?

7) The choice seems now between these 2 combos of claims:

7.1) (Ban on King suicide + Ban on King murder = Ban on Losing + Ban on Winning) <=vs=> (Approval on Errors + Approval on Zugzwang = Approval on Losing + Approval on Winning)

8) Because of claim #1, "Victory or Defeat = Fun", I vote for the latter claim:

8.1) Remove Stalemate from the draw rules.

8.2) Remove Suicide ban from the draw rules.

Claim #8.2 is not so important, but I'd enjoy it also. Players are allowed to eg suicide their Queens, why not the Kings also?

To add further fuel to "Stalemate = Zugzwang" chess, the game of Go is sometimes advertised as better than chess because of less draws. They even ban infinite repetitions to increase win %.

More fuel: we esteem accuracy, or at least bluffing accuracy if eg Mikhail Tal comes to mind! So we should seek to maximize the accuracy of measuring differences in player skills & gifts. Stalemate always favors the lesser player, because lesser control of the board, less material, or so.

With no stalemate, every pawn advantage would be winning. Two Knights could win. One Bishop or Knight could win. Why oh why do they now not win? Remove Stalemate please! And add "Victory chess" ie "anti-Draw chess" ie "Stalemateless chess" ie "StaleZug chess" or whatever its name would be, as a variant to chess.com, and become more a forerunner than already!?

Excellent. We will all join just as soon as you start up your new rule chess website

Lagomorph again. Why do you keep expecting ME to start some new website?

I know practically nothing about programming a website, renting or otherways arranging servers, or anything else related to such business ventures.

I'm posting ideas so they'd get done, not because of making money for myself. I wouldn't even know where to get a team for which I could at best work as a designer.

And why reinvent the wheel when it's already done? NoStalemateChess would be much easier to modify for an existing website, rather than redoing what's already been done.

Sure, if You or Chess.com WANTS to send me money for this idea, or for the bet chess idea, I'll welcome it... Not expecting it, not requiring it, though.

Thanks for the bump anyway... increases chances for the idea, so I suppose you liked it, despite your hints of sarcastic irony.

Just let us know your new website address. We are waiting

Maybe chessvariety.com.

I've been also thinking about & live playing by randomly selecting which pieces start first, so it would sometimes be "blacks to play with initiative"... Equalism + (Variety = less color memory + more generic method).

Or how about changing the names between Kings and Queens? Why is the Queen the most powerful mover, when Men obviously fit that description more, and Men are the ones protecting the Queens more often!

And change all Piece names to more modern words, eg "Troopers = Pawns" & "Special Forces = Officers" (sorry for English chess language's homonyms; in Finnish we differentiate "Pieces = Pieces + Pawns" as "Pieces = Officers + Soldiers". Heteronyms produce faster learning and less confusion.

How about change all chess terms into various, more civilian oriented topics?

Pawns = Losers

Queens = Alpha males

Kings = THE female

Capturing = Redirecting

And so on !?

"Stalemate = Victory"

But who should win?

Once upon a time there was a rule who got stalemated won. It was reasonable punishment for stupidity and inability to deliver proper checkmate.

I've read the same from Wikipedia. Think I've reasoned quite properly that move compulsion should force the King to move & suicide in stalemates. The logical continuum breaks too much if not.

And stalemate winning? Punishment is:

1st you play to win by reducing enemy material.

2nd... you fail.

3rd you start playing to win by reducing your own material to get stalemated?

Why? Most breaks of the logical continuum are stupid. Stalemated getting victory is stupid. Draw is less stupid. Defeat is intelligentmost.

It's possible to say:

4/4 point for checkmate.

3/4 points for stalemater, 1/4 points for stalemated.

2/4 points for draw otherways.

0/4 points for defeat.

I'd still keep the logical continuum simplest it can, and award full 1 point for stalemate because again, why break the move compulsion rule? Why introduce an artificial extra rule (direction for logic) for "Stalemate = not Victory"? Why break it at all in the name of more draws, when so many players complain "too many draws" among the most influential players ?

And this stalemate = 1 point test should (optimally) be arranged on top levels, because they're the best ones to showcase how gameplay should&would change if stalemate was Victory by King forced to suicide. And remember, suicide prevention rule is only to help beginners. It can still remain a beginner rule, just as many people with beginners say "Take that move back" if they feed material without compensation.

And if we believe humanity to progress toward more intelligence, wisdom... We should expect intelligent players... Let's put more:

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." said Leonardo da Vinci.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage, to move in the opposite direction." said Albert Einstein.

So simplest rules with least exceptions is best. Stalemate is an exception, a surprise in a bad way. Either we start playing Fortress Draw Chess, or Move Compulsion Victory Chess.

Sorry if I adopted Polar_Bear's attitude about "stupidity" too much. He probably thought as I do, the attitude was from old English attitudes as per Wiki. Why else the previous loser's victory? Indeed a teaching attitude of maintaining an Empire: "You start slacking in victory, you not only draw, you may LOSE!". But why underline that, when chess Already teaches the same? And indeed2, slack too little and you go to war with Central Europe 2 times and lose (all Europeans lost both wars).

"Stalemate = Draw" is a remnant of the "logical continuum" of "No move compulsion". That's for cowards or defeateds or potentially defeateds, for fortress builders. Drawists.

The rules of chess, as per Wiki, haven't changed since the 13th century, except for Stalemate.

But Wiki added with Logic, would create many, many varieties of chess.

I would create\modify a chess website, where you could:

TICK BOXES about RULES YOU WANTED for your NEXT GAME. Example:

Stalemate = Win, 3/4ths Win, Draw, Loss.

Piece (Officer) speeds = infinite (current), 1 square, Chaturanga, Shogi (with more intelligible piece images), etc.

Board size = 8*8, 10*8 (Capablanca chess).

And any other varieties!

I know, I know: "Then not so many people play contemporary rules!"

Yes they would. And many more would join merely for the variety! Chess.com would overpower every site with variety... more so than now!