Stalemate needs to be abolished...

see you in 100 more posts time electric...

Existing rules create highly enjoyable game (not for you but for other 99.99% of players). So they are obviously good. Why to change?

As for your "new" rules - I have no clue if it will be enjoyable.

I also enjoy learning endgames a lot, have plenty of books. Do you have something to offer for your "new" chess?? That's where tradition comes in. You think it's bad but again 99.99% think it's great.

This is highly personal and subjective but that's normal when we talk about a game played for fun.

A lot can be learned from this game. One of the reasons I hate sudden death time controls is that you don't have enough time if the game is too long. Notice how many blunders are made by white and how white could easily have won this endgame. In fact two gms playing this black would have resigned.

A very instructive game -- if instead of arguing about the rules you understood how to win this game.

The great thing about chess is how hard it can be to win even in a won position. Taking this away makes the task easier and this game would have been trivial and would not require additional skill.

Interesting.  So there were two stalemate games...I have had none but then I don't play a lot of live chess at short time controls.  Significant chess is OTB matchplay, lasting a few hours; this is the one any rules regarding stalemate should be considered as relevant to.  I am not saying other chess is in any way "not real" but it doesn't count for normal ratings, titles or leagues.  It is unlikely to crop up in correspondence play or turn based play here as long as players are careful.  If the underlying issue is failure to be careful at speed chess then why should it affect "serious" chess rules?  A better use of time might be to practice conserving time or reflexively checking before moving.  Maybe even play longer time controls - speed chess causes errors in human play, not the rules.

Indeed.  Nuff said, yet again.    

Yes, more and more this looks like one big case of sour grapes.

we will make it to post 600 in no time,  This type of spam is why nobody reads the entire thread. Enough said.

Well, I have read the entire thread and that is a few hours of my life I won't get back.  It basically consists of exchanges like:

Player a: Stalemate is part of the game, it conforms to the rules; it is a logical punishment for poor calculation; there are no valid reasons to change/remove it; it doesn't cause that many draws; etc

Player b: You are all stupid peasants for not agreeing with me; clearly it violates principles or I would be able to win more games and stop people laughing at me; bah bah bah.

Enough said. :)

Much better thread (below) on the same mindless topic...

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

Perhaps more notable too.  

And getting bigger all the time.  By the looks of it.

That thread is an opinion poll, there are a lot of good arguments both pro and con in this thread.  Guess we should start a new thread, so that anyone interested can find the arguments.

Both threads are giant mounds of turd; the woodie thread is probably a bigger mound because it attempts to be definitive about turd, but then at least it isn't a slow-motion temper tantrum.

Perhaps someone ought to make a vote thread over which stalemate thread is the bigger turd?  At least that one might be fun.

I dislike the stalemate situation, I tend to play to win or lose, I don't play for a draw if i'm 4 queens down and a few rooks to pound the misery in. I would resign and would prefer if my opponent did the same thing if the "tables were turned". Playing for a draw what use is that if there is no $$$ on the line.

After you describe the games to your friends or relatives...

"Well I was getting beat with 4 queens, 3 rooks and 3 knights but I got a draw, what does that say for your chess skills?? Not very good, before the game get's totally out of hand you can at least resign to save yourself some dignity. Would you rather have a screenshot of you getting a draw when down 4 queens etc. etc. I'd laugh at how bad you are" xD!! :)

If you are in trouble and you get in stalemate that's being smart on your part

Wow!  It may not be,  "logical"  but  it is a RULE!!  People should learn to live with the RULES and play the GAME!!  Do you all see what i'm saying here folks;  watch what i'm doing at many levels;  many metaphors are contained in this post...Just thinking outloud here...

You must be taller than the mound of turd to vote.

I dunno, I'm 6ft and I still think I'm way off meeting that limit...

Well yes, I think neither thread getting any votes would be a wholly appropriate result.

Your attitude blocks all progress.  If our ancestors had shared your attitude we would still be playing medieval  chess and stalemate would be a win.

Ooh, can't have that.  You see, I lost a game once in which my opponent castled kingside, so I'm of the firm opinion -- no wait -- I demand that kingside castling be abolished.  Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a worthless troglodite.

We need a third candidate mound of turd so that the result can be 0-0-0.