Stalemate needs to be abolished...

So true!

No!! Y ou can't get rid of it!

It's akin to blaming the controller for your video game shortcomings.

Our Favorite Monster will surely have a response to that, Grobe, where he will most certainly state, once again, how idiotic we all are.

I know it's coming, so I will state, again, pot, meet kettle.

Stalemate should equal a win for the giver. Draws should only be accepted when neither side can checkmate/stalemate the other. Fighting chess, only. And futbollers should keep playing the full game until someone outscores the other. ALL great competitions have a winner and a loser.

in fact, any blunders that were not intentional should be forgiven and the player allowed a takeback (in non-professional games).

I dont think you understand this debate...

You are arguing, "the current rule is the rule, so the rule makes perfect sense." This is obvious, and its non-sensical to even debate this obvious fact.

Im arguing... lets compare my rules vs the existing rules, which is better?

Under my system of rules
1. King gets captured
2. if you cant move, we defer to the EXISTING clock rule, [you cant move] if you dont move your clock will run out.

Under my rules we are *holding people to account* (responsibility) for their moves (as Im arguing we should), and my case is (had you read post #16 and understood it) that if you cant move we should NOT consider that you are in a position of "equality" (1/2 a point) because the main rule in chess is you MUST MOVE. The stalemate rule is a badly tacked on rule saying "you must move at all time EXCEPT when you cannot move (PRECICELY THE MOMENT YOU SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO MOVE)! It is a bad EXCEPTION rule.Its ESPECIALLY bad because the existing clock rule would cover this case already!

Are you starting to understand the debate?

Monster, there is no move to be made because the game is over as soon as the player who delivered the stalemate made his move.  There is no inconsistency here.

If the player delivering stalemate truly deserved the win here, he'd demonstrate it authoratively by delivering checkmate instead of stalemate.  Stalemate would be a weak, weak way to win.

"there is no move to be made" no one is arguing this... we are arguing that AFTER this has happened how we divide the points.

We've covered this before ... Technically speaking there is no "inconsistency" in adding this rule either:

*the bishop moves on a diagonal on its color EXCEPT on move 29 the bishop goes up your butt.

Theres no inconsistency, because the rules are clearly defined.

It doesnt mean the rule is good though.

Everything about stalemate runs counter to the games logic (you know what I mean) as does my silly rule about the bishop.

RULE 1) YOU MUST MOVE *

*if you cant move you get a draw.

So you keep admonishing people for arguing that "the current rule is the rule", but at the same time you keep citing a current rule ("You Must Move") to underpin your case.

You're cherry picking.

By the way, there's been a strong argument put forth that the stalemate position is 100% the result of the last player to move (the one who delivered stalemate).  You seem hesitant to address it.  I'd love to hear your take, especially since you're so adamant about holding people to account for their moves....

My opinion about the topic: "Just no...".

Again, I'm not sure why you feel that the "you must move on your turn" rule is of greater importance than "it's a draw when there are no legal moves for the player to move."  I also don't feel that this is at all a bad exception since it's not ambiguous when the exception would be applied.  It's paradoxical, sure, but many in this thread have stated that it gives the game character, which is just as good of a reason to keep the rule as is.

P.S. The "clock rule" was a relatively recent addition to chess, and its main intention was to prevent players from stalling the game indefinitely.  In light of this, tying time constraints to stalemate like you suggest doesn't make a whole a lot of sense since such a change to the rules would truly deviate the game from how it was intended to be played.

Any consistent set of rules can be used to define a game. Existing rules are great because:

1. they create a game that everybody enjoys a lot (except for Monster)

2. there is wonderful chess tradition of few hundred years (for which Monster expressed no respect because of "silly rules" but that's his problem)

New rules create game of unknown nature (and Monster ignored suggestion to try it as a variant for testing) and it will cut with tradition (which is unacceptable for me and many others).

These simple arguments Monster has left without answer in the past so I decided to give it another try.

@MonsterNoNamey, wants to continue engaging in pedantic hairsplitting regarding a compendium of "rules," whether real or imagined.  This along with his spewing of insults.  No surprises there.

@TheGrobe (and others) have covered this topic 10 ways to Sunday.  And done it concisely.  Much appreciated.

It's cherry picking, plain and simple.

On one hand: "You can't base an argument about what the rules should be upon what the rules currently are"

On the other: "The rules state you must move on your turn, so a player who's been stalemated must be compelled to move, and to place his king en-prise at which point it can be taken"

I could just as easily put higher priority on the rules that prohibits moving your king into check and argue that this makes the stalemate rule logical and necessary, but then Monster would call me a goldfish and return to his argument about not citing existing rules despite the fact that he's doing exactly the same thing.

Actually, the "bishop to butt" rule is perfectly fine.  The rule is applied equally to both players and it makes it so that enduring anal penetration becomes an aspect of the game, not unlike how in chessboxing, boxing becomes an aspect of the game. 

Now, would I play this particular version of chess?  No, since it doesn't really suit my taste.  Maybe I'll even create a no-bishop-to-butt chess variant if I'm perfectly content with the other aspects of the game.

Just a thought.

Modifications to existing rules are great too, because they can be used to make variants for folks like Monster who don't like the existing rules.  Why the solution in which everyone's wants are met isn't pursued is beyond me.  Seems that for Monster, forum trolling is a higher priority than actually doing something constructive to allow him to play the game the way he'd like to.

When you stalemate your opponent, the game automatically ends. This is one of the different possibilities of a game end. The others are checkmate, resign or claimed/accepted draw.

When the game ends, you don't have to move anymore. The rule "you must move when it's your turn" doesn't apply anymore, because the game has ended. Period.

If you don't accept that, you might as well move your king when you get checkmated. Maybe your opponent will miss the way to capture your king and you will escape.

Why don't you write a letter to FIDE? After all, we are not here responsible for the rules of chess. We just follow them, otherwise the game would be a chaos. Rather move your insults to FIDE, they will certainly appreciate your presence.

Perhaps the ability to claim a draw on three-fold repetition and after the 50 move rule should also be reviewed in light of the all compelling requirement that players move when it's there turn.  I mean, the clock's there to ultimately decide the game, so why should the player in the defensive position get a draw here?  In both cases, one player almost always has the initiative so he should be awarded the win.

Or maybe we could just skip the middle man and jump right to a game of hot potato.