Stalemate is the most senseless rule ever

HJR Murray wrote:

"Historically chess must be classed as a game of war. Two players direct a conflict between two armies of equal strength upon a field of battle, circumscribed in extent, and offering no advantage of ground to either side. The players have no assistance other than that afforded by their own reasoning faculties, and the victory usually falls to the one whose strategical imagination is the greater, whose direction of his forces is the more skillful, whose ability to foresee positions is the more developed."

But while it can be looked upon in that light, and, while people have used chess in war analogies and sometimes even demanded that military leaders (or even knights) learn the game, it's certainly not a game of war, neither in logic nor in practice. 

I liken the idea of forcing generals to play Chess to the way HR depts force employees to take Myers-Briggs tests...it's completely misguided and only someone who is less than competent would seek to rely on something that they don't understand has no real relation to what they are trying to accomplish.

To OP:

I read a summary by a boy who writes in this site - can't remember his username unfortunately. He wrote elegantly and eloquently. I will use his reasoning, even though his conclusion is opposite to mine. 

You say that the object of the game is to capture the king - no it isn't. It is to CHECKMATE the king. To reach a situation where you're attacking it and it can't stop the attack on the next move. 

Moving into check is illegal. 

In stalemate there is no checkmate - and the opponent can't step into check. 

The game can't continue - but you didn't checkmate. 

- - - - - - - - - - - 

If the object of the game is to checkmate - stalemate as a draw is very logical 

If the object of the game is to capture the king - stalemate should win for the player who forces it. 

Saying that checkmate is the object of the game BECAUSE you get to capture the king next move is conjecture. There is no next move - the game is over because its object was reached - and that is checkmate.

There's also the idea that some generals seem to believe their military prowess confers upon them a high aptitude for chess: see Napoleon and Winfield Scott.

While war is not chess, and chess is not war, they are often used as analogies for one another. For example, it's been said that while Putin plays chess, Trump plays checkers.

And that, for whatever reason, is a very hard concept for many to grasp.

As a vet and a chess player, I'm here to state categorically that they have nothing to do with each other.

It continues as an analogy because people mistakenly think that strategic thinking from one domain to another is a transferable skill. 

Could you explain that again?

Thank you Batgirl!

In siege warfare, if all the people inside the castle die of starvation, you simply use a ladder, enter the castle and you have won.

No stalemate!

How many draws were there in the last World Championship?  

Was the World Championship a big event to most people?

What major television media covered it?

Where was it your local newspaper?

Magazine?

If one infantry soldier and a King both armed with swords forced another King against the back wall of his castle and the King against the wall couldn't move without being run thru by the infantry soldier who should win?

Chess has evolved over time to become a better game and should continue to do so!

Stalemate is stupid, draws are boring and hurt the popularity of the game.

CHESS NEEDS TO EVOLVE!

Stalemate is something we must understand needs to change!

Draws should be few and far between!!!

The only exception should be when only the 2 Kings are left!!!

Carl von Clausewitz wrote a book about the theory of war in the early nineteenth century. 

A key datum from his work is the idea of the purpose of war. 

Is it to destroy an enemy? To demolish it? - No it isn't. 

It is to force the enemy to have a more amenable attitude. 

The enemy is unreasonable - you want it to be more collaborative. This is the purpose of war. 

How do you achieve it? By overwhelming it. By demonstrating to it that it is helpless against you. 

If chess should be likened to war, it is exactly through this concept by Clausewitz. 

You don't have to KILL the king. You do want to OVERWHELM him. You want to DEMONSTRATE to him that you can do what you want with him. This is how you win a game of chess - and I find this concept quite remarkable. 

The reason for the stalemate is so that karma can pay back players who do this:

One of the high school kids I coached was in the process of humiliating an unrated player who didn't realize he should have resigned. My player decided to Queen as many Pawns as possible before applying checkmate.  I was busy as USCF Tournament Director and didn't realize what my player was doing - until other players called me over to the board.

There sat my player, green in the face as he stared at the board where his six Queens had, as you probably guessed, created a stalemate position.

I told him later he had gotten what he deserved, including a big hit to his rating, and to never do something so mean again!  Fortunately, he never tried that again!

I agree!

For what?  We are apparently in different army camps.

Stalemates and draws are separate things even though stalemates are treated as a draws.  Stalemates form  an integral part of the game without which chess would be diminished and years of theory rendered pointless.  Draws, honorably achieved, are simply one of the three natural outcomes: + - =

Batgirl-For correcting me, by stating the fifth variant of stalemate, over the ages, that I did not include.

The media covered the Fisher/Spassky World Championship like crazy. It was in the paper everyday, on the nightly news, etcetera, etcetera. Fischer was a media Star, but those were different times and a much slower paced world. 

ah... I see. Then you are welcome.

2016 World Championship

12 games

10 draws = BORING

1 win each for Carlsen and Karjakin 

Must go to rapid chess

Can't you see there are problems here?

The game has serious fundamental problems when 10 out of 12 games are draws.

Getting rid of stalemates would likely have little impact on draws at the highest level. Players would stay away from lines that are are endgame draws where the reason is lies in the fact that stalemate is a rule.

There would still be a lot of draws.

It's been mentioned several times in this thread that "changing the rule back" would render several hundreds of years of accumulated endgame theory completely irrelevant. None in the "anti-stalemate" camp has yet to counter, or even address this point.

i completely agree, you said it perfectly.