Stalemate rule needs to go!

Just because it was politically incorrect in old times to have a game where someone "kills" the king, the rules now prevent moving king into check. But if you just change the goal to be "take the king" then stalemate is not needed. Pretty simple.

Yes it is.

You'd have to change another rule, either allow a player two consecutive moves, or allow them to move their king into check.

If so, then is this actually a rule in chess or something chess.com added?

Steps

1. Be a complete newbie to chess, a game with hundreds of years of tradition.

2. Propose a sweeping rule change because you do not like the outcome of a game.

3. ?????

4. Profit!

It's an actual rule in chess. It makes the game competitive until the very end, as even a player who is such a hopeless position still has the chance to tie.

you can't get rid of stalemate in chess, so many complications would arise, not to mention quite a few drawn endgames suddenly turning into winning endgames

is this a white to move and win puzzle? been trying to solve this one for years.

I lost a game with Black last time, probably because White gets to play first.

That's unfair, Black should play first too. At least when I am playing Black.

I don't think I should lose just because I get mated. I have other pieces on the board, right? I say lets play to the end.

if, say, chess is played to the end, your king will be destroyed on the next move anyways.

unless you're suggesting that all of your pieces have to be captured to lose. But what if your opponent has a rook, and you have a queen? That would normally be winning, but it would be hard to win if your objective would be to trap and capture the rook.

Oh, I would find a way, trust me. Stopping the game with mate is for cowards. True chess warriors battle it out to the bitter end.

so what would be blacks move if he has no legal moves? the stalemate rule is good it ensures that the opponet has something to play for and if it wasn't there then all all king + pawn vs king would win for king + pawn sorry but your idea is just stupid when you have that type of material advantage you need to be careful as well

well then I suppose resignation would have to go as well? 

The username "Be Patient" is so ironic

How did this game reach this position? You moved a total of five pieces, Two pawns, your pair of bishops, and your queen, yet you captured all of his pieces in under two and a half minutes...

Looks like a fake:

lot to be said for 14.Qg7 alright

keep in mind they were only rated around 600 at that time

Have to agree with grolk, out of my own experience I can say that something like that is possible at that rating. When I was around 800 I think, I made a very good game (as I thought then), With my Queen I tidied up my opponents side because I checked him all the time and brought the King into bad positions because many other squares where blocked by my Knight, Bishops etc. That was a very funny game. Anyway something like that would be impossible at my current rating.