Stalemate rule needs to go!

you're welcome

To make stalemate a win for the attacker just makes things easier for the attacker. Why would you want to do that?

A stale mate indicates that neither player can make a legal move=It is an important rule in chess

Chuck norris once sacked his king....and won.

astrodisaster,

I'm not responding because I think removing stalemate is a serious question.

I think your two knights example is a good one to consider.  It demonstrates that the possibility of stalemates has a very wide influence on the game as a whole.  A high level player is constantly making calculations with regard to eventual endgames, and the material and positional character of the endgame which a particular move might help to produce.  Thus, he knows that if he ends up with two knights against a lone king, he will have generated a big material advantage, but one which is useless.  He has to reconsider any move which he thinks will produce such an endgame.

As such, for strong players, stalemate diminishes the game in precisely zero ways as such a player can never claim to be "screwed over" by a stalemate that he should have seen coming many moves previous.  But more, it adds layers of intricacy to every move of the game.  That is why it exists and why I hope you learn to love it.

I'm sure somewhere there's a variant that evades stalemate.  If standard chess isn't to someone's liking, then he should seek out such variants.

Well, yes, but not claim chess is wrong and that variant should become the main rule of play (which was the OP's idea).

Of course there are fairly less players that play that one, no regular tournaments, etc.

The OP simply didn't know how to mate.  He should be for the abolition of Check-mate, not Stale-mate.

I didn't follow the whole thread...so was it decided we are going to do away with stalemate? And will it affect current games or just new ones?

See the last thread on this that went on for about 10,000 pages and all your questions will be answered.

The modern stalemate rule was standardized in the 19th century so there could be international tournaments.  Until the rule was standardized there were many variations of the stalemate rule.  The rule in Spain until 1600 was that a stalemate was a lesser win (it was a .75 win) and the rule Luceana was operating on when he published his chess book.   Having stalemate a lesser win makes for more layers of intricacy. 

So, we are getting rid of stalemate, then?

i had a queen, he didnt. but he mated me. Ohhhh nooooo.

Damn! The 'You Win' rule should go!!

And all those patzers that can't mate with a queen,

Who want stalemate to go - oh that is really mean,

I've got them on the list ! None of them would be missed.

(for those who don't get it : search "the mikado of japan ko-ko list")

Stalemate as a lesser win is a genuinely interesting idea...hm.  Could have a huge and very intriguing impact on tournament play...

same for me

Why don't we also eliminate the checkmate rules; then we have no losers!

In the (very) old days stalemate counted as winning.