STALEMATE ANSWER

i know that this is a heated topic but the answer seems very simple. all you need to do is add an additional rule. chess has been around for over a thousand years and in that time period rules have been added, that's a fact. just say that a king cannot move into check with the exception that if the king is the only available piece to move and all it can do is move into check then that king would be captured. this would not change game play at all especially compared to castling and others. all this would change would be that very end moment of the game. if the idea is to capture the opponents king then this is much more logical rule.

let me know what you thank. dont care if it stays or goes, this just makes alot more sense to me

but the other side still one the battle am i correct. the battle wasnt considered a draw.

and that didnt apply to all the kings haha. off with his head

Chess is not broken, so let's not fix it.

And abolishing stalemate would have a profound effect on chess strategy. Think about it. No more opposition draws in K + P endings.

chess wasnt broken before knighting and en passant but here we are. the game is more enjoyable with them. i think it would be even more enjoyable to have definate winners then just more oddley lopsided draws

i meant castling earlier ha

The stalemate should stay as is. Taking it away would take away that look of shock on the winning player's face, in that moment the player that was suppose to lose becomes the winner via draw. If the winning player can't checkmate on their own, they shouldn't be granted a win.

I just want a good argument against my idea then saying that's just the way it is. And by looking at the posts I don't think I'm that one person thinking about this MASHANATOR. I obviously don't care as much as you I just found it a odd rule because no real life situation would end that way in a draw

BorgQueen im only looking for people who actually have an argument to say then just adding nothing to the debate. so far liamsmith86 is the only one with a real answer i guess i should stop thinking of it as a real life battle situation.

the way i see it being checkmated and not being able to move unless its into check is a defeat in any real battle

I think a few people have responded a little too insultingly to what I believe is a fair question.

I do however think that BorgQueen makes the standing point. For the very little convenience that it will add in a few situations, it will actually make more situations worse! I LOVE the endgame and trying to nuzzle out those last few moves as every single one of this is just as important as the last.

If you were to change the rules of stalemate, in the two examples BQ gave, I guess they would have to declare white the winner due to more material (another rule to change). Which is definitely more boring than the dog eat dog endings we see today. I'm not in favour of a change, but raising the issue is completely fine with me

cool thanks for the feed back. i guess it makes the ending more intresting. the look on the persons face was the best comment. as long as i get to call it the magic wizard rule its alright haha.

thanks to the people who can keep a level head and keep it at an intellectual level. unlike Mashanator. so defensive You acted like i said everything you thought was stupid. you dont have to take roids to play chess less anger that way lol

Yes...in a real-life battle, it is not considered a win if all the combatants except for three are slaughtered (the Kings and a piece that checkmates). :)

well in a real war i guess it would be more then 32 people as wel lol. as for real life at the time i thought of them more as squadrens lol dumb i know. i take back my ideas,i am a defeated man.

also have u heard of the reti position

mashanator ur obviosly so arrogent u cant see how you were being a d bag which other peoplpe made comments about get over urself and i was never angry. never said it was a stupid idea just wanted more info. and i agreed with the people who could keep a level head and not be dcks. people like you make new people to the game  reluctant to ask questions when all they get back is d bag answers like urs. didnt have to be that way but you got offended for some reason, take ur blood pressure medication.

maybe if i said that the stalemate rule was the worst in the game and should be abolished you might have reacted the way you did but i never said any of that. if you cant keep ur comment at an intellectual level instead of making it so personal keep ur comments to urself. many people gave calm helpful comments. somthing you need some work at. when im not the only one saying it its definatly a you problem

i only get mad when people act like d bags just because they get off on it

The true test of the worth of a rule is the test of time. A bad rule will eventually be phased out. Here are some examples:

1. Stalemate is a win for the side giving it: Phased out centuries ago.

2. Stalemate is a draw: Phased in centuries ago.

If it didn't make the game more enjoyable, it would never have taken hold. 

So even if it is difficult to convince someone why the current implementation makes for a better game, it is easy to understand that it has been selected as best by centuries of testing.