Change Chess Rules?

You're not as clever as you think you are. I haven't gone wrong in my reasoning and if you don't understand it, you are the one with the problem.

I am exactly as clever as I think I am.  

You have gone wrong in your reasoning and if you don't understand where you've gone wrong, even with the assistance of my explanations, then you are the one who lacks the necessary intelligence.

Yeah, I'm the unintelligent one. Not the person that thinks two bare kings should be played out to 50 moves.

I mean, your brilliance is astounding. Maybe you should petition FIDE to change the rules because obviously you're a genius and the clocks should be the most important part of the game. Who cares if a player can't checkmate their opponent because they don't have the material to do it. They deserve to win the game, because, gosh darn it, even though they couldn't hold on to any material (which would likely give them the win on a time out of their opponent) they should be rewarded for running the clock out.

The only rule changes I'd be looking for is that they be uniform across all orginazations, with FIDE's format being preferable.

Examples:

USCF often uses 5-second delay.  There is no delay in FIDE.  It's called Increment.  USE IT!

In USCF, If you have a K, K+N, K+B, or K+2N and opponent has no pawns, and his clock runs out, it's a draw.  In FIDE, if any mate is possible with the given material, including helpmate, it's a win, otherwise, it's a draw.  So in FIDE, King and light-squared bishop for each player is a draw, but King and opposite colored bishops is a win for the player who still has time.  For example, WKh6, WBc3, BBg8, BKh8 - Checkmate!

USCF - Your phone goes off, it's 10 minutes or half your time on the first violation.  FIDE, you forfeit immediately, NO EXCEPTIONS!  The world should follow FIDE!  I HATE players that leave their phones on.  Yes, HATE!

USCF - If you push a pawn to the 8th rank and don't make it something, opponent can slap the clock until you do.  FIDE, your opponent gets 2 extra minutes because it's an illegal move, and it now automatically becomes a Queen, even if that's stalemate.  If you want to under-promote, you must do it on the move, not hit the clock with a pawn.

USCF - Upside down rook is a queen.  FIDE - Upside down rook is a rook.

USCF - 2nd illegal move is 2 more extra minutes.  FIDE - 2nd illegal move is a forfeit.

USCF - You can castle King first, Rook first, or both simultaneously.  FIDE - You must move King first.  Simul illegal and Rook first equates to a Rook move, not Castling.

USCF - You can make the move, then write it, or write the move, then make it, but there is the added note-taking law, which apparently confuses people and they still seem to think they can write a move, think on it for 8 minutes, erase or cross out, and write another.  NO!  That's Note Taking!  They mean Write and Execute (no hessitation in between) or Execute and Write.  Not Write, Think, Change, Execute.  FIDE - No ifs, ands, or buts, you make the move, THEN you write it!  Clear cut, simple, and just flat out better than USCF.

So long story short - Changes to the rules of chess:

FIDE - NONE!
USCF - A LOT!  THEIR RULES ARE HORRIBLE!

A stalemate constitutes a loss for the player who can't make a legal move in return.

I think charles was suggesting that the rule be changed, as per the OP question.

This is absolutely asinine. If you don't have the material to legally checkmate your opponent you cannot win. How, therefore, do you deserve to win? You seem to want to make the clock the most important aspect of the game.

I don't really agree or disagree with chyss's rule change, but I do disagree with a lot of the arguments being made. I don't think there really such a thing as whether a player "deserves" to win. Not fundamentally. Instead we should discuss whether the rules result in a fun, rich, or challenging game. So chyss seems to like a game where you can play for two goals, a checkmate or win by time. Other people prefer a game where the players focus on the one goal of checkmate. (This is my preference.) Personally, I like fat increments and I play a lot of online games with three days a move, so this rule change wouldn't have much effect on me.

Also, it seems that some people try to argue for more "logical" rules at the expense of fun.
superiorbeing, even though it's unpleasant to be prevented from castling by a check, I think it's a richer game if you have to consider the additional tactical or long-term issues. Preventing your opponent from castling is an additional mini-goal you can aim for in the opening.
charles_butternucker, stalemate as a draw seems strictly superior to me. It adds some exotic tactical considerations to the end of the game and forces a winning player to do more than just trade down into a king and pawn v. king ending.

Thrillerfan, I don't see the appeal of FIDE's rules here:
"In USCF, If you have a K, K+N, K+B, or K+2N and opponent has no pawns, and his clock runs out, it's a draw.  In FIDE, if any mate is possible with the given material, including helpmate, it's a win, otherwise, it's a draw.  So in FIDE, King and light-squared bishop for each player is a draw, but King and opposite colored bishops is a win for the player who still has time.  For example, WKh6, WBc3, BBg8, BKh8 - Checkmate!"
Could you elaborate? It just seems kind of arbitrary. 

no! thx

I'm glad you've come round to my way of thinking. I applaud your open-mindedness, and your courage in changing your mind in such a public forum. Good for you sir! 

Saying that something is 'ludicrous' is not an argument against it. You haven't answered my points. 

If  you change the rule as I'm suggesting then you would 'lose on time'. You're making the mistake of other posters of trying to justify the rule by its own existence. Once you grasp this point your arguments might cease to appear so ridiculous. 

Actually, the clock is meant to be decisive, to ensure the game is completed in the set amount of time the punishment for overstepping that time has to be a loss, as a draw would be unfair in a lost position. That is the flawed element of your reasoning. 

An upside-down Rook representing a Rook is ridiculous.  It's just convenience when a set doesn't have two Queens and at least one Rook is off the board.  Any player who whishes to promotes to a Rook yet puts it on the board upside-down is as much an idiot as if someone turned the Rooks upside down and placed their knights on their sides to start the game.

As for the losing on time issue, there has still been no sensible refutation to the claim that if neither player deserves to win then a draw is the obvious result.  Claiming that a player who loses on time deserves to lose therefore their opponent deserves to win is just a typically flawed one-way implication.  If a player has no mating material then they do not deserve to win, irrespective of their opponent's situation.

Eh, you're either trolling or need to get your sarcasm meter checked. Maybe both

Saying it is ludicrous is a statement that I find your argument (on running out time as it relates to game outcomes) specious and not really worth the disucussion anymore. Any point you had (which was answered by an honest reading) is moot at this point as I'm not replying to the inane part of the argument.

Just replying to points outside that discussion at this point.

Part of the problem is there are directors that don't play chess.  So they know the rules, but they don't know any strategy.

This is a problem for USCF rules.  The rules state that if a player has K, K+N, K+B, or K+2N and Opponent has no Pawn, it's a draw UNLESS checkmate can be forced.

For example:  WKe6, WBh6, BPe7, BPh7, BKg8, it's Black to move.  He let's his clock run out.  White has forced checkmate here.  Black's only legal move is 1...Kh8, to which White follows up with 2.Kf7, after which Black's only legal moves are 2...e6 or 2...e5, both of which lead to 3.Bg7#.

With FIDE, you only have to demonstrate that this structure is physically possible.  By doing so, White wins if Black's clock runs out, period, end of story.  Straight, simple, and to the point.

With USCF, one has to be able to demonstrate, and the director actually has to understand, that this checkmate is completely 100% forced.  Only because of this, White gets the win.  However, if this were not completely forced, it's only a draw.

One of my first ever tournaments, I thought the rule was if you could demonstrate a mate you got the win.  I was informed that that's FIDE, not USCF.  I was White, rated 1177 then, and had a Light-Squared Bishop.  Black had a Knight, h-pawn, and King.  I pointed out that if the Black King walks into the corner, the White King arrives at f1, Black advances his pawn to h2 while White toggles the Bishop along the c8-h3 diagonal, and then Black gets his Knight to e2.  White now goes specifically Bh3, Black plays ...Ng1, and White mates with Bg2#.  In FIDE, I'd have gotten a win.  For that win to count in USCF, it would have to be 100% FORCED, and it's not, it's a helpmate.  Because it wasn't a forced mate, it was declared a draw when I called Black's flag down. (Time control was G/60, and this was in the days of the analog clock)

What if a director doesn't understand that the sequence in the first example with KB vs KPP is completely forced?  What if one tries to demonstrate a mate but the opponent claims he can get out of it and the director doesn't know because they don't play the game, only know the rules from the rulebook?

Now you see why that rule is a problem for USCF?  Too much for the director to figure out.  It's easier to see that a mated position could be set up and legally reached (via toggling the Bishop on another diagonal until the Kings got to h8 and h6 and Black is getting his bishop to g8).

EVEN WORSE - CHESS.COM!  If you have K+B and nothing else, it doesn't matter if you have forced mate, you are stuck with the draw!  So if WKe6, WBh6, BPe7, BPh7, BKg8, each side has 24 minutes left, Black should just sit there due to Chess.com's glitch!  He'll get a draw for doing nothing.  1...Kh8 is the only "legal move", but 1...Kh8? 2.Kf7 e5?? (or 2...e6??, better is 2...Stall!!) 3.Bg7#

If there isn't an extra set of queens, and no available queen within reach (i.e. maybe next board over also traded queens), then the correct procedure is to stop the clock, summon a director, and inform the director that you need a White/Black Queen on board (whatever board number you are).  Director gets you a Queen (or third Knight, third Bishop, or third Rook), brings it to your table, your move is already declared and therefore must be played (otherwise the stopping of the clock would be deemed cheating to gain time), and you proceed to hit the clock so that your opponent's time begins.

You also have to pass a certification test.