And that's just it - if you don't have sufficient control to definitively beat your opponent you really don't deserve the win.
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.
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...
To be clear, though, the 10% that wasn't idiocy and whatever subset of the whole that was "pretty darned entertaining" were mutually exclusive.
Coincidentally this subject cropped up today during the commentary to round 5, London 2013 Candidates.
From approx 04:00:35 onwards can hear what was said:
I like bacon wrapped suasage dogs.
Stale bread with currents n' raisins covered in a Daeth custard opening...Oh! and a nice cup of tea!
Cup of tea & pkt of pickled-onion Monster-munch sounds good.
what about a nice bulbas salad dipped in a hot n' spicey Jempty dip, all in a hoinky rap.
Has yours got a name zach?
Not yet Stevie. But am going to invint one soon.
Cool, thanks for the link. I do agree that it would be pretty fun to see a GM tournament with a one-off rule that delivering stalemate is a win, and just see how the players deal with it. Has it never been done?
Also, a rule that says if you agree to a draw then its a win.
By logic stalemate rules need to be changed.
The idea of check and mate, is not to completely change chess with a new rule, its just something made to make impossible to players to make some mistake that would make them lose the game when the game could continue.
So, the player would make the move and lose, but other moves that he could have made would not result in a loss, so the game is ending by pure mistake.
Thats why, if the player enemy is attacking the player king but would not be able to move to the place because it would put him into check, it still count as check. This happens because on normal chess game, this enemy player would be able to capture the king and win.
On the stalemate situation all moves the player can make will make him lose the game, so if he makes some move and lose its not a mistake, because there was no other move that would make him not lose* and so he is not losing by a stupid mistake.
*Unless he request draw and the other player accept.
So, stalemate should be a win for the other player.
BUT...... chess is usually played with timed rules, so it would be possible to happen this situation:
A guy is stalemated (forget check rules now) and make the move, but then on the next turn the enemy time runs out before he capture the king.
So, there is a way to not lose on a stalemated situation if you are on timed chess.
Based on that we need two rules to different chess types.
If the chess is not timed, when on a stalemated position you can request draw, if he not accept (most likely), you lose.
If chess is timed a different is needed:
If you are on a stalemated position, you need to make some move (or request draw) or the time will run out and you will lose , then the enemy player will need request draw or make some move (and so capture your piece) before the time runs out of he will lose the game.
While thinking about those rules this made me think about the check rules, check is a win but, this doenst means the other guy would be fast enought to capture your piece before he runs out of time. So, in theory a similar rule need to be made to the check rules.