Stalemate needs to be abolished...

there's someone who can learn.... how to be a good little sheeple, who follows the rules because they are the rules and doesnt ever question them. Even though the rules make little sense to him ("I have been both amazed and outraged by sudden stalemates") he will ignore his intuition that the rule is stupid and condition himself with 1000 games until his brain adjusts to the current rules of stalemate. After his brainwashing is complete he will come back and say "the rules are perfect the way they are, they make the game for FUN" or some other stupid rationalization like that.

Games are played for FUN. That's the only valid criteria.

Then he will sleep a full 8 hours of untroubled sleep. The end

actually it was just a load of belching and farting

I dont think its so "subjective" (practical speaking)

Consider....

1. when its your turn, you must move (stalemate then comes along as an "exception rule" tacked on very badly, precicely the moment you should be punished for not moving)

I don't see what your issue is with exceptions to rules, I dont have a problem with exception rules... I have a problem with bad exception rules. eg "bishop moves diagonally except on move 29 it goes up your butt" this is obviously bad... Castling and pawns moving 2 at a time are good exception rules because they are shortcuts for what people would have done anyway (eg move pawns up to control center, or "castling by hand") Note also ! how the en passant rule is an "exception rule to the exception rule" of the pawn moving 2 spaces at once to correct for the problem it does cause! Also the king cant castle thru check is also and exception rule to the excpetion rule of castling to fix the problem it causes..

Why do you keep on bringing up this "bishop to butt" rule?  I've already stated that it's not a bad rule.  It's just inappropriate behavior for a game like chess, but it's perfectly fine as a rule.  You still haven't explained how the stalemate "exception" is bad.

and I also don't see why the stalemated player "should be punished."  Because of the main tenant of chess "you must move, even if it means you will lose, you cannot pass your turn, if you refuse to move then your clock runs out" to then turn around and say "oh, but now you cant move because youve cramped yourself to that point... ok fine game is terminated you dont have to move and you split the points doesnt make sense. This final position should not be considered a position of equality. I can move you cant.

People have already pointed this out to you several times, but you seem to have this false assumption that there is some of heirarchy of rules, then using this concept to try and override the stalemate rule.  This is wrong. 

Also, it seems as though your main issue with the stalemate rule is with the logic behind the concept.  If this is the case, you might as well be asking the logic behind why bishops move only diagonally or why pawns cannot move backwards.  Just because a particular rule does not follow your train of logic does not make it flawed in any way.  I understand why you would feel that stalemate "should" not work the way it does, but that's how it was intended to work.  Do you really think that the people that came up with the rules of chess would have decided on the stalemate mechanic without the foresight of how it would work in actual practice?  For you to go around stating how a game should or should not work merely because it doesn't work the way you want it to is pretty arrogant on your part.  This is also the reason why Uri stated in one of his posts in the past that you have little respect for the game.

There are plenty of rules in games that don't make a whole a lot of sense.  For instance, why is one required to dribble the ball in the game of basketball?  Afterall, it's much more efficient just to hold on to the ball and run around the court that way.  Why should you deliberately slow yourself down when you have the ball?  Of course, the dribble rule is one of the defining characteristics of basketball, which is why people don't ask such questions.  Think of stalemate in the same way.  It just doesn't feel like it to you because you rarely experience it in your own games.

The stalemate criteria are made perfectly clear within the rules of the game.  You make it sound as though stalemate is some hidden loop in the system [The bishop to but rule could be a rule of the game too doesnt mean its good] .. that losing players can ulitize to draw their games.  This might seem like the case to beginners, but experienced players [stalemate punishes elite players as well, although there its not simple traps but for eg K+P(wing pawn)+B v K+B .... top level players usually grind down lower rated players, stalemates impact on the endgame makes it a lot harder for a 2700 to grind down a 2400 for eg. ]

You have to read the rest of my sentence.  I said that experienced players are aware of how it may affect their games.  That doesn't mean it never happens in their games.

should be aware of the concept and how it may affect the outcome of their games.  The fact that the player without legal moves goes unpunished is simply the rules working as they were intended.

2. the clock rule already exists, your turn, cant move, clock runs out.. (stalemate rule again is an exception rule (badly tacked on) to this too! Again stalemate is not needed and is not elegant)

This isn't really an arguement against stalemate, just an elaboration on your proposed change (which is an arguement against stalemate).

No. An arguement against stalemate would be reasons behind why it is bad.  Your proposed change is just the means to fixing the stalemate "problem."

Also, I've explained in post 1050 why time constraints should not be tied with stalemates in the way that you suggest. I think the most consistent and logical consequence of "you must move and not pass your move rule, and your clock runs while its your turn (and you run out you lose)" should end with stalemate = 1-0 (ie a stalemate rule that carries these rules to their natural conclusion, as opposed to current stalemate which is the *exception/opposite* to the natural conclusions of this rule, ie *it turns these 2 rules upside down!*)

Again, read 1050.  It's not a natural conclusion to a game at all.

3. The stalemate rule means I am responsible for your moves as well! I have to spend *my time* calculating your moves so you can move about freely! This is not fair.

Yes, in chess you often need to spend time calculating moves.  This includes your opponent's moves as well if you want further insight into the position.  I don't think this is a problem since that's basically what you do in chess. Yes but as i mentioned, i shouldnt have to calculate to protect your pieces!, to make sure you have enough freedom and space to dance about. After all this is a competition, a fight.

Why not?  Sure it's a fight, but it's not some backyard brawl.  You still have to follow the rules of the game.  Making sure that you don't incur conditions for a draw is something that the winning player should be constantly be doing, even if it means looking at your opponent's moves.

4. stalemate affects many endgames where one side has a signficant advantage and turns those into draws. So to win a game you need quite a large advantage. This is not fair, and makes the game *less* exciting (more draws)

Yes, you do need some amount of advantage (sufficicent material to mate, etc.) in order to win a game of chess.  That's intentional, and the game is fine that way.  You also speak as though draws are inherently boring (no not boring... just draws by stalemate are bad)

This just stems from the notion that stalemates themselves are bad, which is not true.

, which is not at all true.  Like others have pointed out, is only the premature "grandmaster draws" that are boring.  In fact, a game with a win/loss outcome can just as well be boring. This is why people often throw around the phrase  "if you think draws are boring, you miss out on a lot that chess has to offer."   My point is that reducing the frequency of draws doesn't necessarily make the game more exiting.  A draw is just the result of the game, and says nothing about whether what took place was exciting or not.

What are your reasons *for* the stalemate rule ?

I actually have several in mind, mostly repeating what others have already said several times over in this thread.  However, the fact that the current system of rules is completely functional and chess players prefer the current system over yours is sufficient reason to keep the rules as is. 

Im being so clear, lucid, logical, my points are so ingenious, how can you people resist the beauty of my mind ?? unbelievable...!