Stalemate needs to be abolished...

There used to be a chess program that a friend of mine had back in the 90s called Power Chess.  I don't know if this is what you meant.  The Power Chess Queen talked to you while you played. She had the most seductive voice I've even listened to, seductive, that is, as if she holds you entralled by her voice.  I used to go to my friend's house just so I could use her Power Chess program and listen to her talk. The actress who supplied the voice was Natacha Ferriere.  I had forgottne about that. Thanks.

Good post. There are too many on here, who think they have the right to dictate what subject can, and can't be posted on here. Self appointed moderators, who believe you must post what they  deem appropriate, or don't post at all. Your right about the rest too.

All I see going on in this thread is this:

1) people have been conditioned for years to play with stalemate (without thinking about this rule, just accepting it)
2) people dont like change, they are disturbed by a new rule suggestion
3) people want to keep old rule, keep things the way they are
4) a whole lot of backward rationalization as to why we should keep the rule.

By this I mean when you decide something you shouldnt make up your mind before you even think about the options. Otherwise you get thinking like the posts above.

Just wonder how many things *you don't like but you are stuck with it? Education?

 I feel bad for you. Just pick on me like usual.

1) No need to be conditioned for accepting the rules, I refuse a rule when it seems unreasonable which is not the case here.

2) One can be disturbed by *your new rule doesn't mean one do not like the change.

3) The rules change over the years, therefore people do not always want to keep the old rules nor they always keep things the way they are.

4) A whole lot of backward rationalization as to why a rule is kept or not.

Battle Chess is a very old computer chess program which featured animated chess pieces.  I'm not sure how popular it was, but you would probably recognize it if you see it.

I was really fond of it because the addition of animated pieces felt as though it added a whole new dimension to the game, despite not changing the rules of chess whatsoever.  I would kamikaze material just too see what all of the piece capture animations are because the method of execution by the capturing piece would be different depending on which piece it captures.

Here's a picture from wiki.  The ingame graphics are nothing like this of course.

Thanks.  That Queen looks dangerous!

Here is the Power Chess Queen:

Why should a player be rewarded for being stupid enough to allow stalemate?

If you are such a dimwit at this point of your chess career, then you deserve to lose.

Another GM who honours us by his insightful 1294 rated experienced thoughts.

What rating do we have to have, before we're allowed to give an opinion around here?

I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

Could you please explain your reasons for thinking the stalemate rule should be abolished?

and all this time I've been going to work and , ummm, working. :-(

Giving an opinion is one thing, unnecessary bashing is something else. The only people whose condescending words are (wrongly) tolerated are usually high rated strong titled players. But on chess.com, it seems quite the opposite. These 'insightful' words such as "dimwit", "you suck at chess" (the last one is from another thread) mostly come from the lowest 'experts' I ever read.

True enough.

It has been answered – you just don't bother to listen.

Anyway here is my short summary:

1. Chess is a board game. It doesn't have to have any resemblance to real life. Real life scenarios can't be used to justify rule change.

2. Logic is irrelevant when talking about rules of game. Bishop moving diagonally – is it logical or illogical? It's neither, just neutral. Same about stalemate rule.

3. There is no contradiction in the rules. Stalemate ends the game immediately. Nobody has to move after that.

I do agree that stalemate=win will reduce percentage of draws. Just not ready to pay the price. Not draws are the problem, but short boring draws and there are other less radical measures (Sofia rules, scoring system) to address this issue. Anyway at amateur level the problem of too many draws simply doesn't exist.

It could be interesting to test proposed change as chess variant to see what kind of game it creates. But it looks like you are not interested to do something practical preferring heated forum debates.

 I want to keep existing rules because:

 1. They create wonderful game that I love and enjoy a lot.

 2. There are few hundred years of games and theory. That's something too valuable for me. You obviously have not much respect for chess tradition. No problem. But you can't force me to feel the same.

 After all we play chess for fun. Now Monster_with_no_Name comes and starts claiming that our way of having fun is not the right one and we should do it differently and accept his way of having fun. And when we disagree he gets angry. That's plain ridiculous.

Are you claiming that you have to be a GM to avoid a stalemate?

That's something you learn when you begin chess.

What the hell does an opinion about chess have to do with chess ratings?

Are you retarded?

I am not talking about a chess position. 

No