Should we get rid of stalemate?

View chess as representing war in past times.

Kings were seldom 'killed'' but held for ransom.

THINK ABOUT IT

Stupid rule get rid of it.

So choices are:

A) Spend many hours actually studying endgames, work hard, a reap the rewards for the rest of my life, saving countless games that seemed hopelessly lost, or drawn. Or,

B) Start yet another crybaby thread on Chess.com forums, nobody is ever going to take seriously.

A or B?

Hmmmmm

Let me get back to you.....

No. I know it's frustrated when it happens but it happens.

I mean

It seems pretty stupid that the opponent has no option other than losing yet it is a draw.

What would you do if there were just 2 kings, what would happen?

Also, what would happen if your king couldn't move?

I think you shouldn't because then you have to wait for the clock to run out, and it is just very time consuming. 

Not a stalemate, that's for sure.

see the previous years of comments. . .

Should we get rid of people who think we should get rid of stalemate?

I'll buy you a six pack of beer, and new pair of socks, if you start a thread with that title!!

Stalemate is the only technical chess draw in existence. All others depend on someone claiming a draw or sometwo agreeing a draw which is part of meta-chess. People negotiating on metadata - like 50 particular moves - which does not have any significance in the technical rules of the game. In formal mathematical systems, our draws would be considered "undefinable truths" in relation to the axioms of the chess game. Basically, draws only exist as unlistable complements. If there is no checkmate, and there continues to be no checkmate for ever and ever and ever, only then we may call it a draw.

So let's rejoice at stalemate. It's the only real and verifiable draw you will ever achieve in your life. All the others are just signed pieces of paper!

(somebody wrote that before? I doubt it )

Not precisely.

Insufficient mating material, is also a technical draw.

That is a good one and a complicated one! I take this as a lighthearted thread and will refrain from starting a heavy argument. Therefore only a synopsis of my views

• Insufficient mating material is a special case of Dead positions, a drawing condition that is indeed technical as it does not depend on the claims and agreements of players.
• Essentially though, Dead Reckoning (DR) is non axiomatic and requires metadata and logical deduction. For instance, the insufficient mating material cases were assembled by us in the same manner the endgame tablebases were built namely by goal searches: "finding checkmate positions and then retracting moves" - which terminates quite quickly in cases where the checkmate positions do not appear to exist.
• There are however loads of dead positions not governed by insufficient mating material and I know of no effective method to identify them as you would expect for a technical rule. It is a fruitful domain for problem composers like Andrew Buchanan, currently the leading DR expert.

so what would we move when we are stalemated? Do you just sit there forever, waiting for Jesus to descend and help you, or cheat? No pun intended. Or maybe there was...

sarcasm intended. :)

get rid of stalemate and en passant. it’s plonk like these that give chess a bad name.

Is stalemate getting stale?