Stalemate needs to be abolished...

Well, a draw is an imporant part of chess.  The practice of grandmaster draws tends to give draws a bad name.  All games are drawish in nature until either player changes it.  Stalemates are a draw, just as other other things such as 3 fold rep and perpetual.  Stalemate, just as these other things, contribute to theory and enrich the game.  I fail to see anything at all wrong with stalemante as part of chess. Arguments against it seem to be trying to make something out of nothing.

If we took the word "mate" out of stalemate and replaced it with something else, the view that stalemate should be a win might be reduced. Let's think of a new word for stalemate that doesn't bring "checkmate" to mind:)

My offering is "fool's draw."

Let's use it in a sentence:

"I should have won that game, but it ended in fool's draw."

Problem solved!

"stale fool"?

In chess history stalemate the game was automacally lost to the opponent that caused it ie the person winning the game. So the person that managed to get a stalemate got  credit for the win.

I love when I am at a disadvantage and my cocky opponent walks right into a stalemate. I consider it a win, even if its only half a point.

I don't know.  That name doesn't do justice to non-accidental stalemates, which is almost all stalemates that happen in standard time control at high level.

I still really like the idea that the stalemated king somehow achieves immortality through supernatural means.  Therefore, I cast my vote to "immortality draw."

The real skinny on stalemate is contained in the thread below...

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/abolish-stalemate-vote-yes-or-no-give-no-reason-just-vote

Of course there is always "A Mexican Standoff".

Heres the real problem: you have too much bone and not enough meat in your head. I already (200 times) offered evidence. ok little grobe heres what you do (kindergarten steps)

1.get your crayons out
2. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8302
3. scroll to the very bottom (where they have games from Kramnik! v Anand! WCC game! Korchnoi! v Karpov! WCC game!)
4. review the games
5. NOTE in korchnoi karpov they could have agreed the draw BECAUSE OF STALEMATE 70!! moves before!!! (but they played it out so that patzers like you would get it) This is the point. GM draws often end early because they see whats coming (you dont). Often the reason is stalemate.
6. beg forgiveness
7. draw me a nice diagram of how much you are sorry with the crayons.

You asked specifically for WCC games for evidence.
I give it, and then you switch to : I dont see ENOUGH evidence now.

Foolish little grobe. 1 instance is enough.
Its like me telling you unicorns exist, you denying it, I show you one.. you say show me more.

Have some milk, have a nap, rest the 2 brain cells, then have a think and get back to us.

I knew it! How about dragons?  I am sure they are real too.  My psychiatrist always tells me they dont exist but we will show her, once and for all.  Got any pictures?  Not that I think the fact you have said it won't be convincing enough but I just want to see the look on her face when she has a picture of one in her hands.

lol @ "1 instance is enough."

You do realize that Korchnoi-Karpov was a grudge match and that was the reason why they played on, don't you? Out of spite.

But hey! One genuine example of a WCM ending in a (forced) stalemate. Awesome.

Why am I not surprised stalematers dont understand the concept of analogy. Why am I not surpised this guy has a psychiatrist?

Im surprised he doesnt have a full wing to himself at the asylum with a 50 strong research team studing him.  Sheeple 101

You do realize your a total moron dont you?
If we were playing where stalemate was a win, Korchnoi would have won.

Man are you guys serious??
Are you all seriously this thick?

You know Monster, you still haven't given me an answer to why you won't be content with starting your own variant.  This would seem to solve all of your issues and it would be much easier to do than making changes to the official rules.  This would also eliminate the need of most of the debate in this thread since most people here don't care to change your view on stalemate as long as regular chess is left alone.

Abolishing stalemate may sound good to you in theory, but the chess community may not like it in practice.  So you should make the variant, let people test it out, and then let them do the talking.  As you've already acknowledged, changing stalemate would create a huge difference in the game, so it's only natural that making the change would be a huge investment.  Therefore, you have to first prove that the investment is worth it, and the best way of doing that is to show it using the variant.  Sure it's a bit slow, but it's the right way to do it if you want to actually change the rules.

Yes, I'm well aware that this is probably the sixth time I've said this exact thing phrased slightly differently.  However, you seem to be avoiding my question, instead choosing to respond to the more senseless posts.

I'm the fish on the bottom left.

Ooooh, compensation!

Well in that case, you're obviously totally right about the whole shebang.

The issue at hand was whether stalemate was a large contributing factor to the number of draws at the highest levels of chess.  Your "1 instance is enough" argument is a total crock; you have no clue how that game would have progressed had your rules been in effect.  And now you're calling vulpes stupid for your being unable to address his actual point.  You're a gem, monster, a real gem.