Stalemate needs to be abolished...

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.

Listen.. there are 2 kind of people in the world
1) sheeple ("rules are the rules", dont think, dont ask, wage slaves, multiply at the speed of light etc  baaahhh)
2) ruling class (makes the rules for the sheeple)

* 2) also enjoy playing with sheeple like a sheep dog does with sheep.

Ooooh, compensation! (poor mans attepmt at sarcasm, comes off a little effeminate)

<Logical couterpoints should come here, but are missing>

Well in that case, you're obviously totally right about the whole shebang.
(searching for signs of sarcasm, No, no effeminate screeching before this sentence, no irony here.)

Only losers complain about the rules when they fail over the board.

Listen.. there are 2 kind of people in the world
1) sheeple ("rules are the rules", dont think, dont ask, wage slaves, multiply at the speed of light etc  baaahhh)
2) ruling class (makes the rules for the sheeple)

* 2) also enjoy playing with sheeple like a sheep dog does with sheep.

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.

Aggressive, arrogant posts like this make it very hard to take you seriously or have any respect for your opinions.

Simply put "Stalemate" in chess occurs: "when a player, whos turn it is to move, has no legal moves left to make... this is deemed a draw".

Consider a few arguements for why the stalemate rule should be abolished.
And then we will provide a simple, elegant alternative solution.

So then, firstly lets look at why we should abolish stalemate?

* Stalemate used to be a win, until it was changed to be a draw. (Ill leave it to you to do research on it if your interested in it)

* Contradictory and obscure nature of the current rules
  ie

1) You must *move* when it is your turn (you cannot "pass" your move). Even if it will mean "suicide" you *must move* if you *can*.
   (BUT if you cannot move, its a draw!) This is a contradiction... ie if you can move in zugzwang you "*must move* and "fall on the sword"
   *But* if you *can't move* (which is the highest level of zugzwang) you "get out of jail free card" with a draw. (also we later argue that the king should be allowed to step into check, so this zugzwang can be exploited)

2) The clock in chess is the "life span of the king!" If he lives life burning both ends of the candle he will die an early death... chess is all about whos king dies FIRST. If a player cannot legally move, we should "fall back" on the clock to decide who wins. (ie the clock of the player who cant move will run out because he cant move!)

3) It is illegal to *move* into check (ie even though the enemy king is all surrounded in all out attack, he cant be killed *because* he cant "legally" step into check). This is like a lawyer agruing for silly legal technicalities to get his defendent off the hook, when everyone knows the logical outcome of the courtcase. (why is this the case? We will come back to this in the 2nd part of this write-up)

* If you cannot move, you are powerless, without options, restricted, oppressed and dominated and violating the spirit of the "you must move and not pass your move" rule. Why should you get 1/2 a point?

* So we see the whole plan and point of the game is to put an attack on the king (directly or indirectly ie queenside play first)
But then the stalemate rule comes along (*just when your about to do that*) and says:
"ok... but dont attack the king too well! Dont do your job too well, be careful to prance about the king when you are totally dominating him" otherwise it could all end easily in a draw! Stalemate is the ultimate mating net... The stronger the attack you mount on the lone king, the more chance of stalemate.

* Making a stalemate a win would in no way make endgame play any easier.  In fact, it would probably make it harder.
It's true that K+P vs K would be easier, but K+R+P vs K+R would be tougher.  In general, K+R+P vs K+R would still be drawn for most positions that are drawn under the current rules, but make a stalemate a win, and a fair percentage of K+R+P vs K+R become winnable.
To give another example, K+B vs K or K+N vs K would now be winnable in some situations, but not the general case -- everything would depend on how close the opposing king is to the corner.

* chess is, by nature, already very drawish to begin with... we dont need to give players (who have been outplayed) cheap tricks for more draws ?

* Capablanca, Reti, Lasker, Nimzowitsch and many other top players have argued for a change as well.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#Proposed_rule_change

* an example game, where a very high level player escapes after being outplayed http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7463

*Ive taught many people chess... they all laugh at the stalemate rule as illogical. Probably you did too when you first saw it...

* rules change all the time in other games (eg soccer offside... ) in chess as well... we have many different time controls etc.

* Some argue Draws by forcing stalemate can be "artistic".  Agreed, however, winning by forcing stalemate is also "artistic".


Solution: (ok lets not be so negative, lets give a positive solution as well!)

The goal of chess should simply be "to *capture!* the king."
It should also be legal to "step into check" (in which case the opponent would capture the king on the next move and win)
This simple change, would solve the whole stalemate problem and make the chess rules more logically consistent.

Its much more logical, elegant and simple to have the one rule "capture the king and you win"... as opposed to the current definition of mate: "where the king cant legally move without moving into check" (in the rule we are proposing it is already implicit ... that you shouldnt move your king into check, why do we put silly restrictions on it... if the opponent wants to move his king where it will be captured OR he is forced to..... let him!   Why make it illegal ?)... 

?? I'm not sure what you're referring to by this post, but you haven't answered my question.

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean.  I'm not using the reasoning "Rules are the rules."  I'm saying that changing existing rules takes time and effort.  The particular change that you are suggesting takes A LOT of time and effort.  You have to justify that the change is worth it.  Making a variant and testing the new rule is one way of doing that.  Arguing here is not.

People attack him.
He Defends and Counter-attacks.

'' The Defender is good, the attacker bad; unless the Attacker has a good Reason to attack. Counter-Attacking. ''


This was really easy for me at the Philosophy lesson: the Difference between bad and good and how do you know what is bad and what is good. Can we tell with our Subjective minds what is bad and what is good?.. quoting my Teachers' Sentence

Yes we Can! { Quote\ Barack Obama }
'... But I nailed and Sabotated the Philosophy lesson with this Correctness, and my Teacher didn't had this Pragmatic Mindset at this Topic, so I wasn't Acknowledged and he just Continued without Honoring me.

Now to da Point:

'' they say a Dead Draw, I say you are Death Wrong. ''

Say to the others that they are Arguing 



Ally Defended. 
Now I am going to sleep.  

This really Dissapoints me about you.
I don't think that you are Simple & Primitive because I have read several wise replies of you, and you have a Wise appearance, so this is a Paradox.
Maybe you didn't feel that well on that moment, or maybe something else.
I find people that fail to see Multiple and Combinational Scenario's & Causes awkward.

To all the Predictable fools who want to comment: "your saying this because you drew a blitz game" of course it is you fool. But more to the point, also because stalemate is not a logical rule.

Please also do not say it is my fault that I let it happen. It is you who cant move, that is your fault. I can still move.

 
And that's his right to say, I have the same ' Chainreaction ' mindset, and thus I have an advantage just like him and that advantage can Frustrate you now and than when you are dealing with people and you have everything covered up but they still are Predictable and do & Say what you have Predicted.
'...You also have advantages, but this I don't like.

So why he Complains about the Rule?

Ofcourse not because he lost a Game - too many ( indirect ) Contradictions for that that he shows me, and that would be too easy & simple. Not Logical ofcourse, however, Exceptions do exist.
Self-Explanatory ( at least for me ) is that he is against the Rule from out a Principled point of Perspective&view.
Principled point of Perspective&view.
Like that Sentence, however dunno if that is Totally Correct English.

 
' No name ' wins. Just look at the 16th Reply.... ttsss Really a Paradox
 

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

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.

the fish are biting pretty good