Stalemate rule needs to go!

Hell, let's treat it like a boxing match then.  how about .1 points for every time you lay a check on your opponent, 0.25 for a pawn promotion and .15 for en passant.  We should also value the material imbalance at the end of the game as well, maybe even to the extent that it could offset a checkmate.

You know, since we're intent on ruining the game here....

That would make queen endgames interesting.

People talking about stalemate as some sort of heroic comeback mechanism: it's only a draw, not a win.

Maybe stalemate should be... a win for the stalemated side! More intricate, right? Actually, how about we add a special rule where a losing side can get special powers. Maybe if you lose your queen, your king can "enrage" and takes the queen powers, but only while the opponent still has a queen. And if you queen a pawn then the king calms down again.

Or maybe if you are going to be checkmated you can resurrect a dead piece onto the board. Kind of like a piece drop in Shogi but you can only do it if you are losing badly and have enough dead pieces. That would be hard to calculate.

Dont know if this has been mentioned but if the object of the game were to capture the king this would remove stalemate. Also a (weak) player could lose simply by overlooking being in check. I think it would be interesting to see whether this would improve the game or not. Personally i think stalemate is quite a cool concept and just adds another interesting dimension. Also i may be corrected but im sure i read somewhere that forcing stalemate used to mean a win back in the day.

lol Stalemate stays. You're just mad as we probably all have tried when we stalemated when we should have easily won. 

My advice if this ever occures again. Sacrifice the queen! Then take out the rooks and mate his king with them. Or pretend that the queen is a rook but move her far away from the opponents king. Get out a rook and mate him. Or make sure every move you make is a check. Or just make sure that he has a place to go when he is not in check.

Ok the point is it isn't the game's fault that you didn't win, it's your fault. Learn from the experience and move on! Next time you'll be wiser and more careful. Good luck!

That would also remove losing on time.  Historically a chess game could be won by checkmate, stalemate, or winning all the opponent's pieces except his king.  Stalemate has been treated in different ways by different cultures and the modern stalemate rule became standardized in the 19th century.

Also note that in both checkmate and stalemate, the king has not yet been captured. In both cases the king is exactly one move away from inevitable capture, so conceptually there is no difference.

I think if you stalemate you opponent with a big a material advantage as that, the game should be scored as a loss for you. Plus, you should be expelled from the tournament, docked at least 100 rating points, and stripped naked and put in the stocks for the other players to laugh at and throw rotten vegetables.

Or, let them post a forum topic. That's the modern equivalent.

This topic went on and on ad nauseum for 79 pages of 90% idiocy once before HERE and then again for 40 more pages HERE (until it was mercifully locked).  I'm sure, if everyone would peruse those pages, they would realize that there's nothing more worthwhile, or ridiculous, to add and would become sufficiently tired of the topic never to mention it again outside their most hideous nightmares and that  chess.com would enter a state of bliss and calmness unknown since this topic was first brought to light from under its rock.

Oh yeah, I remember Monster_With_No_Brain....

I say we just call it that stalemate will stay no matter what because its a big part of chess and people who don't like it just stop playing.

The primary purpose of stalemate, draw, insufficient material, repetition, etc. is given due to the fact that White has odds of color. This means by having virtue of first move, White should win save a blunder. However, Black has no such odds in and of themselves, but at the same time since White does, he must prove he has a win. In short, the object of White is to win but or Black is not to lose. That is why in a drawn or stalemated positon, regardless of who achieves it, the person holding the Black pieces will either advance in a bracketed system or ets the tiebreak awarded if in a RR or Swiss system. Without this, there would be no clear way to determine advancing save playing again another game, thereby increasing games for the drawing players, making them more fatigued if they were to have to still play the alloted rounds as opposed to players who scored the full point and prolong the times of tournaments. GIven that a lot of GM games are drawn, this would create a burden for the higher rated players as well.

In fact, I am not sure when the rules for stalemating were actually ratified in FIDE or USCF sanctioning bodies but this was the explanation my coach gave me many years ago.

The USCF does not have the ability to alter any of the rules of chess does it?

I thought the USCF had their own set, so to the extent that they are limiting the alterations to those, yes.

Only for the games they sanction within their body of membership and competition can they adopt or change rules, not to the game itself. My posting prior was simply to point out the reason the rule was written. I am assuming prior to bracketing andpairings, that a drawn game usually resulted in someone playing another game and niether claiming an edge but as for history to the game, not quite certain. As for rules beign changed, we have changed the ways a pawn moves, incorporated certain moves to bishops, increased the power of the Queen, etc. over the last 400 years but this was usually done by some body of players and adopted later as time went on. Obviously USCF rules committees could not on their own merit, alter FIDE rules and vice vresa but there exists some type of framework for determining whose rules are played upon depending on where the venue is and who takes place.

Still, without the rule, we would be playing A LOT MORE GAMES.

Why are people still arguing?Clearly,the OP posted a fake game with a clear intention of trolling

It is white's mistake that the game does not go to white's side. Why we should point our finger at the stalemate rule? If you do not want a stalemate, avoid it!

And that's just it - if you don't have sufficient control to definitively beat your opponent you really don't deserve the win.

On the other hand, thems were some pretty darned entertaining threads at times.

I though this was discussed in a similar thread but it is back...