Stalemate needs to be abolished...

Kweh!

what is stalemate

   Having just read a post this parrot posted 3 years ago (and having no idea why I chose this topic for my argument)  I am obviosly not surprised that some people -4 of them- have in the last three years kept the heart of this dead topic still bleating. 

   The post from unggaunga argues from the point of 'logic'.  The only logic in chess is that it's a particular game with particular rules that  humans have played for a very long time. Certainly longer than rugby, hockey, scrabble, Tour of Dooty... you get the idea.  Logic is not the basis of the game: convention is the basis. 'Bishops' -in real life- do not confine their movements to diagonal pathways. A 'pawn' is more of a figure of speech than a living creature. 'Castles', hopefully, do not move at all. And Queens, quite often are the 'power behind the throne', not the most awful warrior in the battle. Chess is a game with rules established  over centuries. Applying logic to it is...illogical. Try explaining the logic of the 'offside rule' in soccer to, say, your wife or some other significant other.

   If you want to play with logic, consider the logic applied to war during the long history of Chess. As chess is often seen a as a represerntation of war ( but without all the gore, mud and horror), so consider the historical nature of war.  Seldom was a King's death the goal of war.  Kings were special. Kings were sacrosanct in their persons and, even in defeat, nearer In nature to their fellow absolute rulers than to the subjects over whom they ruled.  Kings didn't kill other Kings!  Take their treasure and tax their lands, by all means, but leave them their lives. Even Buonaparte -after decades of attempted World conquest-  was left to live; to live and to grieve to death on an isolated rock in the South Atlantic.  It wasn't until  the Nuremburg Trial after WW2, (or: WW1,part 2) that vanquished 'Kings', were tried -and executed- for waging war. (Or,to be cynical, for losing that war.)

Actually, when all is said and done... if you don't like the rules of Chess, as they are, take your board and go home. Stick with playing shoot-em-up games, and playing with yourself on a computer. 

Great comment, timbeau.  I can't believe this thread is still ongoing.   Btw, I never got the offsides rule in soccer either.  I think lots of things in soccer should be changed.  IMO, it should be played on a smaller field (so there will be more goals), the offsides penalty should be abolished and when the ball accidentally hits someone in the elbow, it shouldn't be a hand ball penalty resulting in a free penalty kick.   That's just absurd.  Also, each team should be allowed as many substitutions as it wants.   In contrast, things I would change about chess .............. nothing.  

1) In the army/war analogy: If an army/king are immobilized/surrounded/dominated they lose.

2) In the "spirit-of-the-game(tm)"/existing chess rules: if you won't move your clock runs out.

3) (same category as 2): The whole point of the game is to target the king/cut him completely off--why then add a rule--that just when you've done your job--now you have to invert what you've done--and make sure now the king isnt attacked "too well"?

It like removing the dunking rule in basketball, its like in soccer when a striker rounds a goalie, he has to wait till he gets back in his goal before he can shoot.

Abolishing stalemate also decreases draws, and rewards players with more material. (eg often [P+B+K vs K] is a draw because of stalemate (also not in the spirit of the game--an already too drawish game)

After the WCC match Carlsen will announce that he wants the "capture the king variant" to be the new standard.

  View chess in its Historical context.

  Kings very  seldom suffered death following defeat in war.

  Kings were Kings... different beings from you and I. 

  After WW1, none of the Kings - George; Willhelm; or Alexander were  'killed''.

  That's what made Nuremburg novel: the losing leaders were tried and some executed for waging war.

  Even Napoleon (for whom many people alive then, was as wicked as the Nazis were to become for us now)  -after sneaking off from exile in Elba (''able was I ere...etc'') was still only exiled after his defeat at Waterloo -a hundred days and another couple of hundred thousand dead later.

  Please don't reduce Chess to another ''slam/dunk'' piece of ephemera.   (How long has Basketball been around?!).  Do you still play with, say, a pogo stick?

Yesterday is last year's future... what gives us the right to judge everything on the manners or on the morality of today! 

(*dear JeffGreen333 I just then scrolled up and saw and saw your post following mine of months ago! Honestly!!  Please believe me when I say that my life is not quite as pathetic as it might seem!)

And hey, M with No Name... I have no idea who or what that cartoon character is, or to what it refers...

In 30 years, neither will you (or you'll just be embarassed).

You dont like basketball = you are racist.

Opinions discarded.

While this is a very old topic, it's the one I just happened upon by accident...didn't know this website existed...so my two-cents:

I played in my first rated tournament at age 13 or 14 (1966-67) in the middle of the original Bobby Fischer era.  I knew nothing except the basic moves, and I had figured out by myself one night a basic 4-move checkmate, so I was able to finally beat my older cousin!  I lost all five games.  A few months later, having digested my first chess book, laugh if you wish...Fred Reinfeld's Introduction to Chess Openings!  I finished 3-2, beating 3 former State Champions, all three of whom were either Class A or Expert Class by the rating system at that time. It was very difficult at that time to gain rating point back then unless you traveled to larger cities and states.  

The point I was trying to make was that the highest rated of the three turned his king over after 40 or so moves, and kicked his leg out in anger,, his right shoe came off,  and flew across the room.  I was so naive I stayed at my board wondering why he wasn't coming back.  I thought every game played all the way out...

• So whenever the stalemate rule was decided, it was a long, long time ago.  I say it's a DRAW!  If you somehow tricked your opponent into putting you in stalemate, you deserve something for preventing an obvious loss...and your opponent deserves to lose something!  Besides, what grandmaster or master would ever make such a blunder, even drunk, but maybe on drugs, lol!

Maybe end it in 5 minute tournaments where the game doesn't end until one player's time runs out or his king is captured!!  Obviously no legal chess move leaves a player's king vulnerable to immediate capture, so yeah...I think I agree with ending stalemate in blitz tournaments.

It is the players responsibility that he left opponent with no legal moves and he should be given a win for that because his opponent has no more moves to make. That is a win in my book, in no way it makes sense to make it a draw when they have no more moves to make.