Stalemate needs to be abolished...

I'm sure this point has been made a dozen times before but might as well bring it back up: 

All (50+ pages of) talk of logic, consistency etc. is completely beside the point -- chess is a game not a mathematical proof. The rules can be as arbitrary as one likes. Perhaps stalemate is logical, perhaps not -- it doesn't matter.  Is castling logical -- and why not thru check? The pawn's initial two-square burst? En passant? Promotion? Why can't you pass your turn? Why not have black go first sometimes... and etc. etc. etc. Games and logic is a non-starter. 

The question that matters is: Would chess benefit from a change to the stalemate rule or be dimimished?

The present stalemate rule annoys many beginners but I think most intermediate and above players understand that it (greatly) enhances the game. 

Stalemate gives a slight but important decrease to the value of material -with stalemate a single pawn is generally not enough to win a game. Without stalemate a single pawn is all one needs. In my opinion high level chess would change dramatically and for the worse if stalemate was a win -- it would become even more conservative than it is now.

Stalemate is a state of affairs that only arises in the endgame. Changing stalemate, taking away a crucial resource from the defender, would simplify endings -- beginners might find that an attractive idea but it would be a terrible loss to the game. Ultimately, wanting to do away with stalemate is just wanting chess to be easier --it's a matter of taste, but I prefer chess remain as difficult as it is. There are plenty of simpler games available if that is what one desires. 

BUUUUUT -- and I'm completely serious:

Here's a rule change I think is a slight improvement to chess (it was the rule at some point, or in some places, I believe):

Pawns promote only to pieces that have been captured. This IMHO adds an element of strategy to the game. Imagine needing to underpromote but you've got both N's on the board! Or needing to delay a promotion until you can exchange your queen -- I think these cases add interest. And as added aesthetic/financial benefit, no more flipped over rooks representing the second Queen -- so ugly. Now a 32 piece chess set is always complete instead of usually complete! Yeah some sets have an extra queen -- but how many pieces would a theoretically complete set need to have? 5 queens? three rooks, three knights, etc.? 

what about moaning about .gif images ?

He's making an arguement that being ahead should not ensure victory. He brings this up because one of the reasons that OP believes that stalemate is flawed is because it can deprive the side that is ahead with a significant material advantage to basically throw away their win.

He's thinking that chess is just a wargame and brute force is enough to win (can anyone think of dictators that liked that logic ?)

and drinking poitin

If you cant win resign

Monster with no Name, you said the rule is illogical, but you must understand this isn't a matter of logic. If A => B and B => C, then A => C, this is an example of logic.

Your like or dislike of the rule is simply a matter of taste, there is no right or wrong about taste.

You gave so many arguements to "proof" your "logic", I am sure smart people can write as much to counter argue your points. But that makes no one right or wrong.

So please don't abuse the term logic to these matter of things. If you don't like the rule, you can find a game that suits your taste.

Comment deleted?!  ....

[moderators note: sorry, but random texts and pictures are not allowed in these forums]

"It is very clear that Capablanca's goal in creating Capablanca chess was to make it harder to draw.  Capablanca spoke of the "draw death" of chess and stated that a modern master could draw at will as white. "

It's not  at all so clear. Can you cite where Capablanca spoke of "draw death?"  Lasker, however, wrote about "tod des remis," claiming that chess was in need of some changes to increase it's complexity or become a drawish exercise. Capablanca felt, in a similar vein perhaps, that chess was on the verge of being solved.  To him, this meant that the natural result of perfectly played chess - a draw - would become almost a foregone conclusion to any high level game, barring errors.  The way, in his mind, to prevent the solving of chess was to make it more complex, so he suggested the changes based on the game developed by Ben R. Foster in 1887. An ad in the Oct. 1898 issue of the American Chess Bulletin states:
Chancellor Chess
An Opportunity is now offered to the public to secure a copy of Ben R. Foster's ingenious work entitled "Chancellor Chess" or the new game of chess.  A new piece is added to the game, having the power of rook and knight combined, and the board is enlarged to nine squares.  When it was first introduced it created a furore [sic] in the chess world heretofore unknown.  Price only 50 cts. postpaid.

This might have been based on games suggeseted by Carrera or Bird, but I can't say.

Coincidentally, in "Chess Review," March 1937,  Barnie Winkelman wrote an article called "On Changing the Rules of the Game." In this article he states:
In the July-August issue (1928) of our esteemed contemporary, the "American Chess Bulletin," a misguided enthusiast takes up the lament of Capablanca that the game has become exhausted.

Capablanca also tried out a different game called "Double Chess," played on an 12x16 board using standard pieces, just twice as many.

I don't know of any evidence to suggest that Capablanca's purpose was to reduce draws, per se, but rather to keep chess from being played out, or solved, whereas a draw would be the natural conclusion to any high level game.

MUST MOVE -> DONT MOVE (cos you wont) -> LOSE

MUST MOVE -> DONT MOVE (cos you cant) -> DRAW

the reason shouldnt matter, only the result.. that youre not makeing a move should..... if anything the reason that you CANT move should be WORSE!

And the reason a player can't move is because of his opponent! You still won't admit that simple truth because it would force you to accept responsibility for blowing that win that resulted in this thread.

Tell me how a player "corners himself" and "cramps himself." Doesn't his opponent and his opponent's pieces do that?

The correct way to express it is Player A cornered Player B and Player A cramped Player B - not Player B cornered and cramped himself.

But at least you're back to arguing that you want the stalemate rule changed because you think it's wrong instead of using the red herring that you're just proposing a new rule without consideration to flaws you perceive in the existing one.

I'd love to have a video of your expression when you stalemated your opponent in that blitz game (or, as you'd put it, when your opponent cramped and cornered himself and denied you victory lol)

Interestingly Arimaa (very similar to chess but with variations such as you make four moves at a time but in many other aspects identical to chess).

See : http://arimaa.com/arimaa/ - for the rules or to try it out

Id also just say that I have considered this only one before question in my lifetime,

First when I was nine (I drew against my grandfather who I had never beaten thus far (he always tried his best). I felt that it was unfair as he couldnt move and I had more material on the board (It was a drawing K + P vs K ending). 

Anyway my point is that your reasoning seams to be akin to a nine year old.

Games are systems rules governing sytems no not have to be logical they simpley have to make it efficent/practical/fun (in the case of games) to use.

I feel that the stalemate rule satisfies that as it adds so complexity to the endgame. You might not find that enjoyable but the majority of chess players do.

Come on Monster, don't leave me hanging.  Give a reply to post 1180.  It took a while to write up that wall of text.

pavlov's dogs probably would have laughed at the idea that they'd dribble at the sound of a bell....

The 9 year old you had the right intuition... [insert the conditioning process] -> and now your dribbling all over my thread.

The bishop up the butt rule would have serious ramifications for internet chess...

(Would anyone be interested in creating a bit of satire and debating the pros and cons of this rule)

Back to personal insults because you can't accept that you were 100 percent responsible for stalemating your opponent in that meaningless blitz game over two months ago and were justly denied half a point. Love it!

You still haven't told me how a player corners himself and cramps himself. What's the matter; can't do it?

You're no better at accepting responsibility for flaws in your argument than you were at accepting responsibility for blowing an easy win due to your own carelessness.

This failure to accept responsibility for your actions and propensity for blaming other people for your own mistakes seems to be a pattern with you

Sorry I have been conditioned by who? "The Party" (1984 reference), or "Ancient Aliens" perhaps?

And I feel that my point has been misunderstood, my feelings at age nine was when I veiwed the game as you do as a question brute force akin to armies on the battlefield. Now by exercising reason I have conclued that I the rule enriches the game for a number of reason all ready posted by much more eloquent people that I.

Perhaps you should take up Arimaa?