Stalemate needs to be abolished...

what a loser

and what a dumb...uh...................how do i put this uh............thing i supppose to suggest we do

yes to suggest a stalemate is like suggesting we all take all our cloths of and dance around a rainbow...........with the leprachauns taping us. with high tech digital cameras bought from the gold in their pots

you mean with the pots at the end of the rainbow and why yes what a juvinial and elementry thing to do.

lets try to pretend he isn't stupid

ok

consentrating.........arrrgh its so hard.................(he is currently sweeting, and has a very strained look on his face) .............fart, ahhh he is stupid. oh no i coldnt hold it in because of the fart noooooooo.

dont cry, i dont think any one can accomplish that.

i suppose so (sigh) he is so stupid.

Totally agree with you. Although I think that he is more stupid than simply "stupid". Might need a better word...

lol sup

my post #16 was published on chessbase as an article.

The highly esteemed editor of chessbase 100% agreed with me.

try addressing the issue logically...

and people wonder why Im calling these idiots , idiots.

Logically speaking, the player who delivers stalemate is 100 percent responsible for it (not the stalemated player.) And, also logically speaking, stalemate and zugzwang (sp?) have nothing to do with each other since in the former, the player does not have a legal move, and, in the latter, the player does.

Websites will often publish articles for free if they are well written and thought provoking, as post 16 is. But publication of an article does not mean it is without flaws or comes to a correct conclusion. For example, many newspapers will publish competing opinion pieces (one takes one position; the other takes the opposite position.)

An earlier poster in this thread pointed to the disparity in granting a player who delivers stalemate a full point, while a player delivering checkmate, who accomplishes the objective of the game, also receives a full point. Surely the player who delivers checkmate is more entitled to a win and a full point than the player who fails to achieve the game's objective.

But the biggest flaw in the OP's argument (in my mind) is stated in the very first post. The OP blames the stalemated player for not being able to move when it is entirely the fault of the move immediately preceding that position, which was made by the player delivering stalemate.

The fact that stalemate is now considered a draw is testimony to the weakness and wrongheadedness of those who thought it should be a win.

History corrected that mistake and we have the completely fair result of a draw today.

The person who delivers stalemate needs to be (and now is) punished for his/her carelessness by losing a half-point.

He wasn't really agreeing with you, only being sympathetic.  His only beef with the stalemate rule is that it may seem paradoxical to beginners, which may create a steeper learning curve to the game and scare away newcomers.  This of course is a non-issue considering how popular chess is today worldwide.  He concludes by stating that changing the rules of the game will not happen, basically saying that your efforts to changing the stalemate rule would ultimately prove futile. 

Also, posters in this thread have addressed the points on your "post #16" several times already a few dozen pages back.  Posters from your Chessbase article also left comments in response to your argument.  You should be giving replies these in your posts instead of insulting others if you want this thread to go anywhere.

@OP: Are you Matt Bishop? That was the article on the ChessBase website, published July 6, 2012, that mirrors the arguments you make in post #16. Why'd you wait until now to tell us that ChessBase published your article when it was published more than two months ago?

In any event, congrats, Matt! Reads well on ChessBase.com

He actually brought this up in post #118 about two months ago.  I trust that he is "Matt Bishop," though that's supposedly just a pen name.  Watchout, because now he's gonna bag on about how you didn't read all 50 pages of the thread before making a single post.

Ah, Ok. I'm sure he is; haven't read all 1,000 posts:) His points are thought-provoking but not without flaws, and I agree with your belief that they would be better presented without insults.

Should have realized "Matt Bishop" was a pen name; I would have caught it if it were "Matt Rook.":)

No problem, I can take it. The OP can't get around the fact that the player who delivers stalemate is the one responsible for it. You can't create a position on the board where your opponent cannot make a legal move and then blame him for not being able to make a legal move. It's completely illogical.

If you dispensed with the check/checkmate rules and simply made it the object of the game to capture the opponent's king, (most) stalemate positions would be zugzwang.  The opponent would be forced to move, and then his king would be captured.  What could be more logical than that?