Stalemate needs to be abolished...

Apples & Oranges

Why buy them when there's monster who gives them away for free?

I put 2+2 together in this affair some time ago. I knew the under lying reason anyone would even pay attention to or bother to care about everone else's game play experience, had to be disgruntlement over a game(s) they p!$$ed away.

Now, thanks to some savvy detective work, the case is finally closed, the mystery is solved, I no longer have to theorize and be ignored by the perpetrator, while he writhes about like an earthworm, digging for more dirt, only to leave behind a trail of crap.

The OP doesn't want to give his counterparts any deserved chances for counterplay, while he enjoys his tactical orgasm. He needs special care to deal with his excited anticipations, that are the cause for his premature climaxes, when he undershoots while trying to mate.

I think people who think draws shouldn't be part of chess should have to go to an insane assylum where the daily activity is to play tic-tac-toe. Once the acceptance of reality, for what happens when you play games occurs, you will have been successfully treated and then released.

Quit spamming nameno.

I'm not. If I make one long post with all of that. No one reads it. If they had a multi quote button, I'd more likely consolidate my replies, but they don't sorry. Each post was a reply to a specific idea, not a series of random ramblings. Therefore I wasn't spamming.

Man I love this guy.
He is Watson to my Sherlock.
I love the scenes from Sherlock Holmes where he asks Watson to deduce something, Watson goes into elaborate convoluted explainations and Holmes laughs at him and points to something so obvious and in front of his nose that he didnt need a single deduction.

Maybe go back and read my very 1st post (#1)
Then re-read your post.

The most important move was the one my opponent couldnt make.

If you think I read upon your command, you aren't anywhere near intelligent enough to be Holmes, while trying to make me be your sidekick.

Any one that thinks go is a peaceful game, is in for a big surprise.

I was thinking of a way to jolt your brains out of the mode of:
"The rules are the rules"
and actually arguing "which rule is best" not "which rule is current". (most seem not to get this).

All rules are not created equal. Some rules are better than others, please dont come at me with abstract stuff like all rules are equal. Remember the bishop to butt on move 49 is not a good rule , even though Uri gets a good chuckle out of it (to the point of crying tears of joy) , who knows maybe he even enjoys that variant, who are we to judge. We are not abstract robots, we are humans (most sheeple).

I found myself laughing when I thought:
I should say: lets assume my rules are the current ones ie
1) Capture the king ends the game you win
2) You have to move or your clock runs out and you lose (no exceptions)
BTW thats why stalemate is bad.. it is a very poorly tacted on rule, like a kids birthday party where they tack the donkeys tail on its head.
You must move at all times, EXCEPT we tack on this stupid thing when you actually cant move (precisely the moment you should be punished for violating the rule), you can pass your move and the game is over with equality.

Anyway... the point was, I was laughing because it occured to me.. if those rules were the current ones, you guys would all be fighting tooth and nail for those rules and calling stalemate ridiculous and stupid. However my position wouldnt change. (because Im not a sheeple, I make my own decisions, not the ones handed down to me)

Not to quibble, but the king is actually never captured. The game ends when the king can't block/get away from an attack

WB Monster, we missed you!  The thread was in danger of losing its way!

Let's try some deductive logic with this. According to the current rules,

1) It's illegal for the king to move into check.

2) The game ends with a victory for the player who puts the king in check if the king can't get out of check.

3) Players cannot skip a move.

Stalemate occurs because moving the king into check is illegal and players cannot skip a move. The player who otherwise would have won does not have the opponent's king in check and so cannot claim a victory.

The reason stalemate makes sense is it does not violate any of the three rules.

Making stalemate the same as checkmate would violate rule no. 2. The player who "wins" does not have the king in check.

Yes I understand the rules.
Im saying the rules are bad.
Precisely the tacked on stalemate rule is bad, because (again)

You must move at all times, EXCEPT we tack on this stupid rule when you actually cant move (precisely the moment you should be punished for violating the rule), you can pass your move and the game is over with equality.

Imagine for a second we "untack" this rule. What would happen?
We would default to the already existing rule: (which btw you left out)

When its your turn, your clock winds down. When youre out of time you lose.
Stalemate is totally unecessary and like a bad appendix needs to be removed.

It sounds like you're asking for rule 2 or 3 to be abolished. But if players can skip a turn to avoid stalemate, why wouldn't they be allowed to skip a turn at other times in the game? If the game can end without the king being attacked, why can't the game end that way at other times? It seems like you're trying to establish a rule that applies only in certain instances, whereas the current rules apply throughout the game.

Doing away with the rule simplifies the game a little bit. This is the last thing we need as there is enough dumb people trying to play the game & pontificate authoritatively & knowledgably on it as is. Chess needs more complication not less (because of computer-software) & this would prevent it being trivialised into 5-nano-second blitz-games.

The other player is not "passing" his move because if that were really the case, the other player could keep moving and checkmate him.

The stalemated player is being forced to violate the rules by either moving his king into check or skipping his turn. Ending the game in a draw by stalemate doesn't violate any of the rules because the player who gives stalemate is not attacking the king. So all three rules remain intact.

One of the rules would have to be abolished for stalemate to be checkmate.

If you allow a player to move his king into check to avoid stalemate, then that rule ought to apply at other times of the game.

If you allow a player to skip his turn to avoid stalemate, then that rule ought to apply at other times of the game.

And if you allow a player to claim victory without putting his opponent's king in check when the king can't get out of check, then that rule ought to apply at other times.

It's like you're creating exceptions to rules that don't have exceptions and that apply throughout the game.