Should we get rid of stalemate?

I disagree!   As dismal as much of Black's game must have been, White's play was worse to allow that lone King to be stalemated!!  No way White deserves a win in that "example".

The only thing that I don't like about stalemate is it motivates people to continue playing in clearly hopeless positions. Its better than when they just letting the clock run out though.

The problem is white promoted at least three too many times.  This is the kind of thing you see at U6 scholastic tournaments. I don't think we need to rewrite the laws of chess to accomodate the tournament playing kindergartener.   

This is by definition incorrect.  All zugzwangs are helpless but "A player is said to be "in zugzwang" when any possible move will worsen his position."

So, with no possible moves, fundamentally the player who's move it is, is not in zugzwang and cannot therefore worsen his position. Moreover, the player has not forfeited, resigned, or been checkmated therefore they have not lost.

Yes, a draw is a partial victory, thus half a point. The beauty of chess is in its simplicity.  Three options, 1, 0, .5.  That's it. 

No double word scores, no free parking. Now, if a middle of the board stalemate was worth the square root of 2 that would be ok.  That has to be harder than a win.

neverrrrr.

If a stalemate becomes a win, all end game theory would have to be revisited.  Many theoretical draws become theoretical wins.

As a result of changing the end game theory, by implication, middle game theory changes also.

In fact, even opening theory will be affected.  All the opening lines of play that have been analyzed for more than 100 years will have to be revisited.  This is especially costly to those who have been playing for years and memorized so much opening theory.

Edit: And the millions of games collected in various databases all become near worthless for instructional value.

Do you just make things up to try prove your point? Howard Staunton died in 1874, never played in a world championship, and never played Capablanca. Also, there was no World Championship in 1942.

Well said.

You are technically right because walking into check is not a legal move, but I would still consider stalemate to be a form of zugzwang if you look at the reasoning behind why the game ends. Checkmate is a victory only because the losing player no longer has any legal move; he can only put himself into check. The game ends because there is a 100% chance that the king would be captured so there is no sense in not considering that a victory. With a stalemate, the reasoning behind ending the game is the essentially the same. The  zugzwang-like position ensures there is no chance of a continuation where the stalemated king can avoid capture. Checkmate and stalemate only have significance in reference to a hypothetical next move, so perhaps stalemate should be called a "hypothetical zugzwang" if you really want to be semantically technical.

I don't consider a non-stalemate draw to be a partial victory because neither side has edged out the other. I do not agree that stalemate should be gotten rid of or treated as equivalent to a checkmate because it is not. I do actually consider it closer to a draw than a total win but don't think it should be considered exactly either. The stalemating player has definitely played inferior to a checkmate by allowing stalemate, but regardless by cornering the opponent he has forced himself into a position that should be considered superior.

For anyone who pays attention to gridiron football I would recommend considering the following analogy: Checkmate is like scoring a touchdown, and stalemate is like kicking a field goal. A draw by repetition is more like punting back and forth to each other with no scoring. When considering whether or not a rule change is warranted it is important not to think of it as "does changing the rule go against the rules." Of course it does, the point is that maybe the game would be better with slightly different rules. The rules have changed many times already and there is nothing wrong with re-evaluating the logic behind them.

This is part of the reason why I think stalemate should not be considered a full victory. If the points are closer to a draw than a victory, the style of play has no reason to change because the motivation to checkmate rather than stalemate is still strong.

stalemate is a good joke, brings some humour into the game.

You forgot to mention that Capablanca died the day before this game supposedly occured. 

If you use non-truths in your argument then why should anyone place any value on what you say?

 I love chess precisely because it is not like football.

The game ends because the king is in check and there are no remaining legal moves.  This is critically different than a stalemate and a zugzwang because it is ultimately the aim of the game and it would be pointless to continue. 

 No, a stalemate is not a hypothetical zugzwang.  The definitions of both are pretty clear.  I see no point in rewriting definitions of chess terms in order to justify the rewriting of chess scoring.  Theoretically, a stalemate does not necessarily result in a captured king on the next move, as my diagram should illustrate.  It is fanciful of course but I am sure one would not have to dig too deep to find a real game example of a stalemate where the king cannot move into check.

But on technical semantics, technically, white has a superior position on move 1 by virtue of the first move. The aim of course from that point forward is to convert that advantage into a win, and likewise for black to refute it.  A draw by stalemate or by any other means has not proved that, regardless of corners, material, or any other virtue of the game including actually being obviously superior.

Points really only have any real significance in tournament play, thus in order for drawing players to be ranked correctly some score must be given for a draw.  I cannot imagine the joys of TDing a tournament where a draw was any other value besides a half.  Start including 1/4 points for stalemates and you would need Karsten Muller TDing all your tournaments because you could guarantee more than half your stalemates would be protested as forced. 

Would the game be slightly better?  Tell me how.

@Gomer_Pyle Touchè

Maybe just have a separate game "non-stalemate chess"; then you can take your choice; everybody's happy.

I'll stick with plain old chess.

Talk about plus ca change

After yonks away the first chess.com forum I open and its this hoary old chestnut ...-again/already.

I wonder if I can get a bet on this topic's odds of perpetuity?   "Oh Tom...!!"

Hoary old chess nuts all over the place

@_Number_6 You raise a good point and I agree that situations like that should be considered a draw. Mainly I am referring to stalemates where an open square is not a legal move because it would put the king in check.

I know that this solution would be seen as overcomplicated, and this will probably prevent it from ever entering practical use, but that doesn't change the fact that I think it is a better form of the game. I don't see it so much as "we shouldn't bother changing the rules because it isn't worth it," as much as I think it that the rule change turning stalemates into draws was a mistake, and that the game would improve if that rule were more conditional. I realize there is a hassle in changing the rules, especially with increased complexity, and most people see that as an overwhelming negative making it not worthwhile, but I put more value in having a game that would be more fair and less in avoiding the growing pains associated with change. I'm sure I have a bit of ignorant bias because I am new to the game, but it's not like there are no FIDE masters or grandmasters out there who feel the same.

Do you think so?  Can you one FM or better who would support a rule change to score stalemates other than a half point draw.  Can you find a master level game played in normal time controls that actually ended in a stalemate? 

Actually, FIDE has been trying to get rid of stalemate for several years now.

They are having much difficulty reaching an agreement on this issue, however. All proceedings seem to be locked in a stalemate............. 

Concerning attempts to handle draws though altering the scoring system, consider the Monte Carlo 1902 tournament:
"A won game counts 1 point. Drawn games have to be replayed; in case of a draw each player receives one-quarter of a point: if the drawn game between the same players is again drawn, then each man receives one-half point for both games; in case the game is won by either party, the winner receives an additional half point, a total therefore of three-quarters of a point for both the games, while the loser gets one-quarter. (This rule was also in force last year.)" The New York "Times," Jan. 12, 1902.