Stalemate needs to be abolished...

Definitely +1...Also, another classic case of projection. Unable to accept and deal with his own shortcomings, he projects them onto other people as a coping mechanism.

[COMMENT IRONED]

I don't get it.  Could you please explain?

He got rid of the wrinkles?

Thanks batgirl.  Much funnier now that it's been explained.

I just hope he used spray-on starch.

I get my comments laundered.

dry-cleaned?

3-word posts from @BigPoy?  His wit is sharper, when his posts are "ironed."

Then he (finally) speaks clearly.  For all to hear.

I dont see the irony..

Religious claims are such they require evidence to prove them.
There needs to be a basis for claims.

Here we are debating a system of rules... there is no "evidence"/belief to speak of. All the facts are on the table.

My system of rules, from a logical/technical standpoint (in fact any standpoint) are just as valid as the current system of rules.

The rest of the debate is about showing which system of rules is the more elegant (mine) and produces the better game (mine). Of course this is a relatively "subjective" question... I  have argued my points (ie the basis for why I prefer those rules) better than any on the other side, who mainly come with lame arguements like ..... well you know them already.

That's kind of the point....

There's plenty of evidence for religious truths, as I've already told you. But - also as I've already told you - seeing the truth requires an open mind. But there's no reason to bring this subject into a stalemate thread unless you're trying to change the subject due to the weakness of your "stalemate should be +1" argument.

And for the 1,000th time, your view that stalemate should be a win is not logical at all, since the stalemated player is not in checkmate and is not at fault for the stalemate position (since his opponent made the move immediately preceding stalemate.)

I realize your mind is too closed at this point to see the truth and I also realize you have way too much time and effort invested in your argument to even consider its many flaws and weaknesses. That's why your only response has been to insult people and serve up the same stale baloney over and over again.

But those with an open mind see the illogic of your proposal because it awards a full point to:

a) A player who failed to checkmate his opponent.

b) A player who is 100 percent responsible for creating a position in which his opponent cannot move.

Lastly, the responsibility for stalemate is not determined by who gets a point or half point. It's determined by who created the stalemate position.

This coming from a person who doesnt understand the fundamentals of logic

#1120 we're all still waiting for you to decypher that non-sensical obfuscation of pretentious nonsense

For it to be ironic, my rules should have no "basis"...

clearly they have at least equal basis with the existing rules.

some fool: "[COMMENT IRONED]"

Batgirl : "He got rid of the wrinkles?"

#1305 the grub: "Thanks batgirl.  Much funnier now that it's been explained."

now thats iron-y!

Dim witted fool.

Maybe this will help you understand how responsibility is determined in stalemate:

If I throw a rock at someone and hurt them but my friend gets arrested for the crime, does that make him responsible for it? No, I am still responsible, even though the "result" was my friend getting arrested and not me.

Now, apply this to stalemate. Is the awarding of a point or half point what determines responsibility for stalemate? No. It is determined by who created the stalemate position.

The consequence of something is not what determines responsibility - it is the act itself that determines responsibility.

I already explained it in the above post, which I was writing before I saw your last post.

You seem to think that by making stalemate +1 you can avoid responsibility for creating the stalemate position. But you are still responsible for it - regardless of whether you get a point, three points or five points. You're mired in the absurd proposition that an outside arbiter (a rule or change-of-rule) determines responsibility for what occurs on a chessboard.

Hooray, this thread has officially eclipsed Fleetwood Mac's Tusk on the all-time Most Bloated and Pointless Works of Man list, next up The Mall of America...  

I believe if someone is stalemated they should have to provide the one who stalemated them with a snack of the stalematers choosing.  If that choice is gum they should have enough to supply the all of the spectators. 

Ohhhhh!  Those are delicious!