Should we get rid of stalemate?

The 700th "Get rid of stalemate" thread, started by the 700th player to reach this position, 20 seconds after he reached it.

Study your endgame! And you won't keep stepping into these stalemates!!!

I dont know the theory about the stale mate and i am not an expert and i am lowly rated(1343 highest rating)....so Guys and Gals please explain to me and the others like me why the Stale mate SHOULDNT be GONE..instead of just going all out on the OP like dim wits and morons...please enlighten me  and the others in a simple language instead of a "follow the leader" style abusing of the OP

Because stalemate is the foundation of 99% of endgame theory. And those of us who have actually put in the time to actually learn endgames, don't want to re-learn them all, because of the sniveling of a few newbies who never learned endgames.

Good reason?

1.  Because it is a possible outcome of any game played by the rules.

2.  A change to what appears to the novice player as insignificant would eliminate a large body of the game and it's theory, effectively dumbing it down so those who cannot be bothered to learn the finer points of the game can get a few more wins instead of draws.

3.  Eliminating stalemates either necessitates a change in the way turns are played which will add rules or exceptions and will effectively ruin the game for a game that is for all purposes over.  Or don't eliminate stalemates and change the scoring which adds nothing to the game except to give fractions of a point to a player who otherwise could not score a full point.  Fundamentally that is unjust, practically it is of little value.

Yes it is possible to change the rules of the game as they have changed throughout history.  Bear in mind though, the last time a stalemate was a win there was maybe one decent player in the world. 

The questions on stalemate is as nuanced as "why is the sky blue?"  The answer is simple and wishing the sky was some other colour for lack of an education is not going to change the laws of physics. 

Has anyone who has proposed to eliminate stalemates proposed a simple way of doing so or has even formed an opinion as to how it would improve the game? "Get rid of stalemates" is not an argument.  Fischer to my knowledge was the last professional player to propose chess by different rules and even as qualified as he was, Fischer Random does not have the appeal to the wider playing population of classic chess. 

Chess doesn't need fixing.  Learn the game.

One should rather learn the game rules instead of suggesting ridiculous things like the following... with no stalemate rule, whiter wins at once with 1.Kf1, when Black's king has to commit hara-kiri.

So, the problem is not the stalemate, the problem is black's tripled pawns! 
I propose we find a new rule to eliminate tripled pawns. 

Did you also search for the following positions? All of which are decided by stalemate?

Just because two masters agreed that a stalemate was inevitable, and agreed to a draw, doesn't mean it wasn't stalemate.

Stalemate is just that common.

True enough. Making the proposition of eliminating stalemates impractial.

yes. pay attention and don't stalemate.

I also love endgames, and have studied my share of endgame theory.  But endgame theory would start anew, just like opening theory would if we changed the starting positions of the pieces.  So yes, it would upset some tea tables.  But that's just the sort of change that's powerful enough to make top-level games of chess more decisive and less drawish.  Anyway, those who put in the work to study the new endgame theory would also benefit.  Endgame study might be even more valuable, because it's possible that more endgames would have a full point at stake, rather than a half point.  Endgames could be more exciting!

Let's hope they would be at least, because probably more top-level games would end by simplifying down to endgames, since winning chances would be less likely to diminish in the endgame.

Stalemate is totally practical.

It allows accidents and natural disasters to be part of the game.

For example, the enemy is totally outnumbered, then a guy goes to throw a grenade to finish them off but accidentally throws the pin and drops the grenade.

The King really is the most powerful piece. Everyone else must be sacrificed, just to keep the King safe. (Excusing the pathetic fallacy...)
Anyway, if you can't get your head around Stalemate (not to mention plain old Mate) go play with a ball instead...

You see, if the king is trapped, all the enemy forces are around him but they have to wait for the King to make his move before they can nab him.

In that respect, chess is kind of like a game of "you're it!".

So the King decides not to move at all and all the enemy can do is stare at him waiting for him to make his move so they can nab him, but if he doesn't move ... stalemate is the only sensible outcome.

If we did not have stalemate think about what would happen! So if your opponent has no legal move but not in check loses! It would add another way of winning and losing. That would change chess. And not in a good way. All those beautiful combonations and moves related to stalemate gone! And only for complete beginers who aren't bothered to study the endgame.

It gives a player who has lost a chance to draw,they do it all the time in bullet,pathetic rule get rid of it.

Stalemate makes chess more interesting.  Keep it for sure!

Absolutely not. Stalemate creates good chances for a player with material disadvantage without a positional compensation to draw and, hence, lets him/her fight to the end. With stalemate being equal to mate in effect, endings like king+pawn vs king would result in victory for one of the sides. Draws will become very-very rare and will mostly be the result of two sides being afraid of possibility to lose if they play out, rather than a logical outcome of a long struggle.

Get rid of stalemate? Who are you, Nigel Short?