Stalemate needs to be abolished...

I don't think the thread was locked because of the topic.

I was actually wanting to get some hard data, for how many of the draws between pro players, are of the type of stalemate being complained about. I tend to think most of them are either by agreement, insufficient material, repition/perpetual check, 50 move rule.

I suspect only a very small portion end in someone weasling out of a loss. That is due to most pro games being so competitive, hence the high number of draws. This logically leads me back to the real motivation for this idea. Someone only wanting to either be able to blindly play offense to get their tactical orgasm. Or so their waste of time, bullet or blitz games aren't ended with sudden disappointment, when they thought they had it in the bag.

Yereslov wrote:

"Why should a player be rewarded for being stupid enough to allow stalemate?"
Contrary to your opinion, not succeeding to avoid a stalemate is not equal to being retarded.

"Are you claiming that you have to be a GM to avoid a stalemate"?
Nor you need to be a GM to avoid a stalemate.

"That's something you learn when you begin chess."
Having learned when you began chess does not prevent one to make a mistake later.

Now lets' sum up this and see how 'insightful' are your thoughts:

1. You associate "not succeeding to avoid a stalemate" to "being retarded".
2.  Because I ironize about your way to talk, you wrongly suppose I imply one needs "to be a GM to avoid a stalemate".
3. You imply learning at the beginning means not failing anymore.

Try to make a post about how you think people are so stupid for failing to avoid stalemate and you'll see how grateful people will be to you for your insight.

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

The opinion is not handle the same way depending if it comes from an expert or a beginner, level which is measured (objectively or not) by the rating.

"Are you retarded?"

I wonder everyday.

"I am not talking about a chess position."

Oh really? Here a quote:

You were talking about "stalemate". "Stalemate" IS a chess position.

Any other thoughts you would like to shared?

haha this is unbelievable.
Stalemate is not just about weasling out of a loss. (of course thats how the amateur with no ending understanding sees it though, but in that case please dont comment)

Ive posted about 3 times now that K v K + p  would now almost always be a win.
Just this small change (there are many other egs) would make the game a lot less drawish. Are you getting this??
GMs often agree to draws because of the stalemate move.
They agree to the draw some 20 moves before the stalemate so YOU dont see WHY they are calling it a draw.

I guess you've never played the game called hearts and experienced someone shooting the moon...it is the perfect and exact opposite counter to your monopoly analogy.

"got the king to well"? Are you even comprehending what you're saying? Clearly you did not get the king well enough or it would be checkmate, not stalemate.

Stalemate is the soul of chess.... chess wont be a fun w/o it.

WHEN EITHER PLAYER CAN NOT MAKE A LEGAL MOVE ====AUTOMATICALY A STALEMATE EXISTS

I noticed you are an amateur yourself. I am so in awe now, I can't help but submit to the depth of your "profession", I am not fit to fathom. Still though,  I couldn't help but mention the following things, that I noticed with my "inferior" understanding.

Ok, let me get this straight...

You view the k vs k + p ending as a common scenario, that you say is the cause for, an "undetermined amount of agreement draws". How convenient, unsubstantiated data to try to undermine my simple, easily understood logic.

Hmmm...

You claim this is also the exception to the scenario I previously mentioned, of someone simply avoiding a loss in a horrible position, after they were completely out played by someone who made a mistake. Yet, it is still someone avoiding a loss either way.

Since you like using analogies, I'll use a few myself. I compare this situation to the horseshoes and hand grenades analogy. I am sure you are aware of when almost counts and doesn't. Or better yet, I'll put it another way. Not dropping the ball for a few hours or more, but then suddenly doing it, has the same end result as doing it in 5 minutes or less.

Back to the k vs k + P situation again. Since you like relying on it for the cornerstone of your arguments, so will I. Some others on your side here think that, the person forced into having no legal move should get no points, but the other player should a 1/2 a point. Do you really think the guy with the extra pawn deserves a 1/2 point and the guy with only a king, deserves no half of a point? Was the guy with the king really out played? What if he played black?

I am sure you are smart enough to see the difference, but where do you "draw" the line? Not every game that ends in this type of stalemate is so simplified. Would you have Houdini 2.0 estimate the position to give the 1/2 point? What a joke. Oh, I know, we'll use unbiased humans who are far better estimators of the infinity, of possible chess positions to determine whose play was better. I'll stop with the rhetoric now.

 Depending upon how it is looked at it, the k vs k + p scenario could also be viewed by many players as a lack of mating material scenario, as much as, it is the more aptly catergorized type of stalemate, in which someone has no legal move. The only difference being there is a possibility someone could still win, but in light of your comments, how likely is it really?

Here in the aforementioned scenario, is something else you missed when trying to use part of the truth, trying to undermine me using a simple general truth. It should be clearly obvious from common sense that, these situations aren't always a win for the player with the k + p. It is totally dependant upon the position and who's move it is when the said material combination finally occurs. For someone so much more adept than me of estimating the scenarios of professional chess, your sure blew that one.

The bottom line is, the guy with only a king will defend himself and if the other guy couldn't mate him due to lack of material, or bad position, the player with k+p was out played positionally, as well as stategically. Whenever either player sees it coming in terms of moves ahead is irrelevant, it doesn't change what it truly is. BTW, you being aware of this, doesn't necessarily make you more astute or endowed in how all this really works either.

Even if you are right about the agreed draws being "often" as a result of seeing the ( can't make a legal move ) stalemate move coming, how often in comparison,do they agree because, they see an insufficient material, a three fold repeat, or an unavoidable perpetual check, because, their safest or most convenient option leads to this? WIth an undetermined amount of games to be possibly played to get a certain point total, I think I would bow out of a few games myself, after getting into some positions I wasn't really confortable with, instead of pressing my luck. I am certain many pros run into this and do the same thing.

Considering the likelyhood of any of these situations taking place and the type of stalemate you despise is only 1 of 5 types, I would say the percentage can't be so overwhelming in comparison that it warrants a rule change. Even if the idea seems flawed. I am sure the people who spent centuries shaping this game had these same debates, yet after all of this time, it is what it is. It makes perfect sense to me. I like it when something I do throws me a curveball or it has an untamed element. Doesn't mundane predictability drive you nuts? If you got rid of the stalemate, it would lead to an even more predictable version of chess. It is already too predictable in some ways to satisfy me.

And this is exactly why the thread is getting nowhere.  I hate to admit it, but it hardly matters that most of the newcomers to this thread repeat previous posts by not bothering to read the previous 13 pages.  The responses made by the OP give the sense that he has given very little attention to what the others have had to say, so posts that repeat the same exact point brought up already by 3 or 4 other past posts would have happened regardless.

I see a lot of statisical and historical claims in this thread with almost no proof or even evidence.  

Bingo....you win the jackpot....

Reminds me of a saying I heard once. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But they are not entitled to their own facts."

I was debating with someone once and it was some what subjective but, he stopped dead in his tracks when I said, There is no such thing as opinion, what you believe is either true or it isn't. Though I was only right in the context, he still shut up.

I don't believe in beliefs.

Are paradies paradies?....

Is stalemate really a good rule?    No,the stalemated person has been defeated, really. Isn't chess supposed to be war on a board?

Should it be abolished?  No, centuries of study would have to be re-evaluated, from the endgame backwards. 

Maybe "No stalemate chess" should become a new chess variant, like lightning, 960, armageddon, etc.  It might become popular!  

K vs K + P....player with king only is playing black....you mean to tell me you think he lost. I say he defeated white with less to work with.