Okay. Let us assume for a moment that we have in fact convinced FIDE that abolishing stalemate is a good idea. That such a change would be momentous enough to get a side column in a few newspapers. That we have convinced beginners chess publishers and the writers of rules for toyshop chess sets to amend their enclosures with the rules of chess on them. Do you really think that chessplayers over the world would look at such a change seriously and not go "No way, thats not happening in my games..." The simple inertia of changing the minds of millions of chessplayers worldwide is a good enough reason not to change the rules in any way. The rules are not broken, why attempt to "fix" them?
Buddy, I like concrete examples.
Soccer is a much more popular game than chess.
Recently they changed the off side rule, where passive players are not offside. Soon they will bring cameras into the game. Its evolving.
Your point was?
Okay. Let us assume for a moment that we have in fact convinced FIDE that abolishing stalemate is a good idea. That such a change would be momentous enough to get a side column in a few newspapers. That we have convinced beginners chess publishers and the writers of rules for toyshop chess sets to amend their enclosures with the rules of chess on them. Do you really think that chessplayers over the world would look at such a change seriously and not go "No way, thats not happening in my games..." The simple inertia of changing the minds of millions of chessplayers worldwide is a good enough reason not to change the rules in any way. The rules are not broken, why attempt to "fix" them?
HIP is right. Regardless of whether abolishing stalemate would somehow improve the game of chess, it is hardly necessary since the current system in place is completely functional. I am psure that what little benefit the change would bring about (if any) cannot possibly come close to compensating for the amount of confusion and discontentment that would follow.