Should we get rid of stalemate?

Stalemates are making you look at the little details but to a lot players its a bit fustrating.

If you're a Rook and a Queen up and can't figure out how to checkmate your opponent, then you don't DESERVE the full point.

i simply take all the pieces of the board and then electric fence him its simpler

It's a pathetic rule.Simple change.If your only move is into check you lose.

I just pulled a stalemate out of certain defeat. Pretty chuffed

They tried that. It didn't work. 

The reason stalemate is a draw is because the rule used to be if your only move was into check, you would lose. But they found that was pathetic. So it was very simple, they changed it. 

There are several different ways to lose a game of chess, (resignation, lose on time, disqualified, etc) but there is only one way to lose by moving the pieces. Checkmate. That means the opponent must end the game by moving pieces. You are not allowed to do it. Suicide is not allowed. 

The rule not allowing a king to move into check in a stalemate is consistent with all the other times a king is not allowed to move into check. It just doesn't make sense to have it any other way. What would the point be in not allowing the king to move into check EXCEPT when it's his only move? Why should that suddenly be allowed?

Imagine a game where there are still lots of pieces on the board. One side has only two moves, one where the king moves into check, the other a normal knight move. But the player simply does not see the knight move, as there are still so many pieces on the board. So he thinks his only move is to move his king into check (stalemate). So he moves his king into check. So with your idea, that's a loss right? But it's not, he had another legal move and moving his king into check is not allowed. What then?

With stalemate gone, this elementary ending is an easy win for white.

And a few thousands of other examples may follow.

     Yes. And without stalemate possibilities in the endings, play (especially at top levels) would become even more defensive than it is now. If it's riskier to sac a pawn or accept a pawn weakness because drawing chances are greatly reduced, bold and speculative play must take a back seat to safety first among those whose livelihood depends on tournament results.

I commented on this thread some time ago and I have changed my mind. Then I suggested we allow a half victory, 3/4 points, to the player who stalemates his opponent. Now I am so annoyed at the crybabies who want to abolish it I think we should go back to the old rule that the player who stalemates his opponent loses. You will get 0 points, not 1/2, and your opponent gets 1

Yes, let’s abolish the stalemate. Why not?!?

I have other freaking ideas from the same range of sight…

-          When you accept a gambit you shall be declared a winner of the game since you’R up a pawn.

-          When someone is ahead materialisticly, that someone is not ALLOWED to surrender.  

-          Exchange-sacrifice is not permitted.

-          Sacrifice is not permitted

-          If you checkmate with a double check that shall count as a double victory. (Hmmm… Now… hold a min… that is not bad is it?)

-          “Mad Rooks” must be committed to a “home”. And, where is that U may ask? Well, where someone who is a “stalemate-rule-abolishment- suggester” call their home, “AN ASYLUM”! Wuhaahhaaaaaa

I ment I have other freaking ideas from the same "DRAWER"

Wuhaahhaaaaaa

Agreed Pfren.

if you stalemate people a lot yes, but if you get stalemated alot no

stalemate can be your last hope in games just like repetition

but it can also be your opponents last hope

yo why everyone posting this

stop ruining the pog feeling of making your opponent fall for the Eric Rosen trap (if you don't know what it is look it up, write something like "eric rosen chess trap" or something idk)

Stalemate ... DRAW-er... ahhhh ... I'll give up...