Stalemate needs to be abolished...

This so called "nature of the game" is something that you just invented. Look it's very simple - rules define the game, its spirit and nature. You change the rules and you get another game. And it's not the other way around, you can't claim that there is some "nature" that should dictate the rules.

You still fail badly to convince me why I should start playing a new game when I already have one that:
1. Is highly enjoyable
2. Has hundreds of placed to be played over internet or in real
3. Has immense amount of learning material.

I don't see what I can gain but there is a lot to loose.

Rule change is a question of consensus and you are failing badly to get one.

You have done a spectacular job of failing to persuade anyone that your argument holds water. Why not abandon this thread and start another "good game" thread?

pass ... next question..

If you abolish stalemate, you would lose some beautiful games played, for example Evans - Reshevsky, change the theory of practically every type of endgame...For example, B+K vs K would possibly become a win for B+K. I'm quite sure that chess players would not recover for centuries. You would have to change the insufficient material rule as well. Do you think that the rule will be abolished?

Changing the insufficient material rule is the whole point of changing the stalemate rule. Your argument is the exact opposite of TheGrobe who argues it wouldn't significant affect the number of drawn games.  It is clear that it would reduce the number of draws.  For instance the famous wrong colored bishop draw between Krochnoi and Karpov.

If you made a stalemate a .75 win, you would still have games like Evans vs. Reshevsky (which is more of a careless mistake by Reshevsky than a beautiful game) plus you would have the possibility of additional beautiful games where the superior side used stalemate to win.

Blake,

It is clear that it would reduce the number of draws.

Actually this is not clear at all!

What it would do is change the strategies of many games. No longer are clever but risky sacrifices going to be employed because "attack and at worst get a drawn endgame" strategy no longer applies. The only way to prove this is to have high caliber players try the game with the new game - I am pretty sure they would play even more  conservatively in this new game.

Another idea is to go over the archive of ALL GM, IM games and see if the side that is fighting for the draw was actually attacking in the middle game.

The other problem to me is that taking away the drawing aspect makes the game seem less intellegent and more trivial -- its too easy now to win with more material ..

Finally, a simpler "fix" for the "draw problem" among elite gms is to have a tiebreaker set of fast time control games played after each draw to determine the winner of the game. Perhaps award a smaller fraction for the draw and then award the remaining fraction to the winner of the tiebreaker games.

This ensures that draws are not rewarded and the draw rate will be reduced significantly in tournaments.

which is more of a careless mistake by Reshevsky than a beautiful game

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and every player makes mistakes - I know of no human that plays perfect chess.

Reminds me of FIDE reporting that Gelfand forced a draw in game three by penetrating both his rooks into his opponent's rear.

http://moscow2012.fide.com/en/home/12-news-en/248-3d-round-eng

Draws can be painful.

While beauty is subjective and the Evens vs Revevsky game is entertaining, Evans combination is not particularly deep or profound and the fact that it is called "the swindle of the century" and not the most beautiful save of the century speaks volumes on how most people view it.

It is hard to see how the play in candidate matches and the world championship could be more conservative than it is now.  Most "attack and at worst get a drawn game" ideas rely on perpetual check or forced repetition of position to get the draw, and usually the attacker avoids the endgame like the plague.   Although I have suggested a stalemate as a .75 win a lesser figure would suffice.  Perhaps if, a stalemate were a .55 win, a would be attacker would find sufficient pot odds to go "all in".

While it is subjective, personally I don't like to see world championships decided by blitz games, and would personally like to see a player who outplayed his opponent get some credit for his play.   In fact, the blitz tiebreaker seems to have caused the players to play more conservatively, saving their mental reserves for the blitz game tiebreaker.

Thank you, for an intelligent reply, instead of usual ad hominem attack.

Oh please... I was waiting for a train while reading your post... I couldn't stop laughing until tears came from my eyes... People around were watching... Oh my God!

Yes, this is a big part of the problem.  You can't look at the rule change in isolation of how players will likely react to the rule change.  Stalemate, or threat thereof, is simply one of the mechanisms by which draws are pursued at the top level.  Again: not the cause, but the means.  Many of these players will still play extremely conservative, drawish chess -- they'll simply find new ways of doing so.

I still don't get why a new variant couldn't simply be created.  Seems the intent here is far more heavily weighted towards trolling these forums than it is to actually effecting any kind of change.

@Monster has player nearly 9000 Games in 10/0 in just the past 1-1/2 year.

Surely, everyone sees this guy is "wound up," and seeking the same from everyone else in this thread.

Maybe it's time for @Chrisr2212 to send her fish back in.  Or perhaps invoke the Mayan Calendar, in the hopes @Monster might relent.

But don't count him, relenting.  This is his first thread to which anyone has paid attention.  And he's loving every minute of it.  

This photo is better than her fish.  With citation to @Chrisr2212--

The new variant has already been created. I saw it on the chessvariants.org website. a while back. I just can't be bothered to find it again. You can always post there  -- someone there has posted recently about stalemate ..

The monster can always get some people to play him right at this site and see how enjoyable it is.

To me it takes away many endgame stratetgies and it seems odd we would want to take something away from the game rather than adding to it.

Would be interesting what GMs and Ims think about this proposal.

Again, you're trying to force real world logic into ingame situations.  The game has its own logic, which is that stalemate is a draw.  It's a strange concept at first, but one must get used to it.  It makes sense in light of chess logic.

And before you bring up your King+5Queens vs King example again and point out that the one ahead in material is "clearly winning" regardless of stalemate, I'd like to remind you that material in chess is not a winning condition.  It's simply a means to an end, and you still have to utilize them effectively to achieve victory.  As an example, I could achieve a draw through 3 fold rep even when down significant amount of material.  Using your logic, my opponent should have been awarded the win, and that this 3 fold rep is a cheap defensive resource that punishes the player that "should have won."  Do you think that in such a case, the win should be awarded to the player with significantly more material (i.e. the one that is "winning") even though technically it's a draw?  I'd like to get this cleared since it would explain a lot about you and your thought process behind wanting to make your proposed change to the rules.

Seriously, if you can't convert a K+QQQQQ vs K ending under the current rules you don't deserve the win.

It's too bad the site doesn't support browser play though.  If it did, I would have at least given it a try to see how it turned out.

Problem is as a variant it would be rather boring.  Variants, for those who enjoy them, offer something different.  Removing stalemate as the only change to the rules would create games where occasionally you would go "Oh, yes, that would have been stalemate in the peasants' type of chess."

Well, actually, a lot of middlegame (and as a result opening) theory would be overturned and need to be rebuilt as a result of endgame theory being fundamentally different.  I think it would actually be a surprisingly different game as far as theory goes.