Stalemate rule needs to go!

If you are in a hopeless position,a stalemate is a positive experience!!

i'll never forget the one i got from 2 rooks and 6 pawns down!

Stalemate can't go! It is one of the things that seperate chess(a strategic game) from war.

Stalemate has to stay.  Winning isn't only being up in material, it's also finishing through for the win.

Stalemate inspired heros like Superman, Batman, McGyver, Rocky and Rambo to never give up a hopeless cause.

It gives you a tremendous "buzz" to get a stalemate, which can be even more memorable than your best checkmates.

Imagine chess without Spiderman (argh! i frightened myself!).

Trust me, you will love it if it happens when you are loosing

Maybe you're forgetting about the Korean War! 

That one's still playing out.

Until they press the button...

see, that's where the 50 move rule is a lifesaver in chess.

This is true without stalemate. Stalemate isn't the only way to draw, and not the only way a player down on material can win. It's just ONE way, and a silly way that destroys some attacking chances and converts them into draws.

It's a rule that demands precision and deft-calculation, the version of chess that is missing it is a cruder, less elegant game.

Oh yes, for the guy that said "then people would have to try force stalemate, this could be interesting too" : try to force stalemate once. I mean, give me one position where one player can force stalemate without being able to force checkmate.

I predict you will find two basic ones, both involve a rook pawn. I also predict you won't find any of them in them in a GM database.

But you can sac the pawn and do a king rook mate.

a rook pawn = a pawn on the 'a' or 'h' file

Here we have the winning argument in a nutshell. In my opinion, those who claim that stalemate ruins their attacking chances and converts wins to draws are seeing it from an egoistic point of view, from a feeling of being "cheated" from a win. Instead try to look objectively at the concept, chess is turn based, meaning you have to take your opponents moves into consideration. If by the way you choose to position yourself on the board, you do not grant your opponent any legal moves, is it not you who should be punished? As others have said, and especially regarding end game scenarios, by abolishing stalemate, you lessen the spectre of beauty in chess. 

Doesn't this prevent stalemate?

chasm, he means that white has a king and a pawn only. "rook" pawn refers to the file that the pawn is on, the rook's file (a or h)

I'm actually looking at it more from the point of view of things like the endgame, where two knights can't win against a lone king due to stalemate. Is that really beautiful? You always have to take your opponent's moves into consideration anyway.

I don't care about being "cheated" from a win. In fact it's only happened to me personally like, once, and not too often in GM games. I think it has a bigger impact merely by being part of the rules, it makes certain positions simply a draw.

Oh.  I guess I misinterpreted it.  Thanks for the clarification.