Stalemate needs to be abolished...

You also run into the broader argument of why, when it's your responsibility to ensure that your opponent complies with the rules of chess in all other instances, you're not responsible that your opponent complies with the "You must move when it's your turn" rule. What is the rationale for that being the only rule you are not responsible for ensuring that your opponent follow?

The problem with shifting responsibility and making stalemate a win (and this was pointed out by another poster) is you're not accomplishing the objective of the game (that depends on what we define it as) yet giving the same reward to the player who did. Do we make checkmate +1.5? In your original hypothesis of letting the stalemated player's clock run out, the game ends without the king under attack. (under the current rules you could run out of time without king under attack and still lose) In your other proposal, that the king be allowed to move into check and be captured, the game could end with the "victor's" king under attack (pinned piece checks king.) So ?

But at least you're now admitting that the player who delivers stalemate is responsible for it (this is so obvious that this was never in debate) and that his opponent didn't corner and cramp himself ( if stalemate = 1-0 then the player did cramp himself, the final move was *obviously* delivered by the opponent, which the stalemated player allowed.)

Alright, how is it "relatively" subjective then?  Relative (here im using the word relatively as a way of saying its not 100%, so relative to 2+2=4 this is more subjective) to what?  I still don't think you know what the word means, or else you would have been much more open to what others have had to say. (its subjective to a degree, for example a weaker player will think the rule is better because it gives him more resources, a stronger player may feel he shouldnt be interfered with artificially from griding down the opponent with the small advantage he has built up). OK on this side of things its subjective. On the "contradictory nature of the rule" -- how stalemate overides the clock rule and the you must not pass your turn rule (which Ive elaborated in detail elsewhere) I think here its not so subjective, but rather obvious that this is not elegant and just a bad rule.

Also, if having "false props put into the game to keep a weaker player artificially afloat" is how some people enjoy the game, how is that not a good argument for keeping stalemate?  It keeps the game alive longer, testing the winning side to truly earn it before taking the full point.  That makes a good game, at least to most chess players.  That's hardly illogical.  You've just been dismissing statements like these as "lame" because you've failed to consider their deeper implications.  Either that or you just automatically disregard statements that challenge your own.

And regarding the games you posted in these last few posts, they all end with the inferior side relying on a tactical shot that utilizes the idea of stalemate.  This supports the idea that the possibility of stalemates as a defensive resource adds more depth to the game and forces both sides to stay sharp until the fat lady sings.  The tactical shots at the end alone make these games very elegant.  What were you trying to prove by posting these games?

The point Im trying to make with those game examples is that stalemate gives way too many resources for a defender (unfairly in my opinion). The game is complicated enough [as evidenced by the many egs of super-GM stalemates I provided, there are 1000s more] I not only have to calculate all the variations of the route to mate, now I also have to calculate all these other possibilities ensuring that you can still move as well, this not only burns energy it also wastes a lot of time. The player who is in the losing position, has nothing to lose at that point, and only has to think about tactics and traps. He is not obliged to take into consideration whether I can freely move or not. This is an unfair inbalance.

You also run into the broader argument of why, when it's your responsibility to ensure that your opponent complies with the rules of chess in all other instances, you're not responsible that your opponent complies with the "You must move when it's your turn" rule. What is the rationale for that being the only rule you are not responsible for ensuring that your opponent follow?

Its not so much that I have to make sure he complies with the rules.. my problem is I have to *cut him slack* and restrict my own options *so he can comply with the rules.* *Or else I lose points.*To me this is very weird

On an unrelated note, you can say that stalemate being 1/2 instead of +1 isn't fair (though I think it's completely fair), but why aren't you arguing about the unfairness of a win with black getting the same +1 score as a win with white? Isn't winning with black harder? Shouldn't a win with black be +1.5? Giving +1 for both a win with white and win with black is surely more unfair than stalemate being 1/2.

And before you say tournament players normally get an equal number of games with white and black, I'm including the millions of casual games as well.

What's wrong with black getting +1.5 for a win?

This is a very good point and I have considered it.
You already mentioned the solution:
give each player equal turns with black and white.

The thing with stalemate is it *always* favours the weaker player, giving them more resources.

Having equal turns with black/white shouldnt favour anyone.
The more points for a win with black is also a very good proposal.

Even giving slightly more points for a draw with black (.40 - .60 ) could be an interesting idea.

Nimzo says all that needs to be said in this game

Speaking of false props put into the game to keep a weaker player artificially afloat, what's with the three-fold repetition is draw rule? I can see the logic of perpetual check being a draw because the checks could go on forever, but why should a weaker player be allowed to claim a draw because the same position on the board occurred three times? That makes no sense. Let's get rid of that one too (and also the draw that can be declared after 50 moves if a pawn hasn't been moved...I'm sure the stronger player could mate with just two bishops if he had an unlimited number of moves to try.)

You have not been reading the thread or you know that it has been mentioned by monster and others that making stalemate a win has been poposed by many including Nimzovitch and Lasker.  That the proposal has not been buried but is very much alive currently championed by GM Kaufman.

Nimzovitch doesn't say anything in that game. I meant his moves are doing the talking. So, if that's your basis for any claim on Nimzovitch's thoughts on abolishing stalemate, it's completely flawed.  If the reusult of the game is supposed to be the basis, since Nimzovitch drew a seemingly lost game by taking advantage of stalemate as a defensive tactic, it would seem that Nimzovitch approves of the rule, and the game itself is a marvelous example of why the rule should exist. 

Actually in that game Nimzo was lost, and his opponent missed his chance (I mean even after all the rook chasing)... the point is, though, that its giving the person in a losing position too many resources, to tire, frustrate, and waste the time of the opponent. The player with the winning position is having to work a lot harder calculating, while nimzo is just suiciding his rook.

If the person who made the last move and delivering stalemate is responsible for the "consequences that follow" [lets not forget the person who allowed stalemate whether thru will or clumsiness is also responsible for allowing it to happen] how is the player stalemate is delivered to supposed to go about "ensuring they are able to move" when it wasn't them that made the last move...? [simple: by avoiding it 15 moves earlier by not getting into a cramped position]

It seems your "whole point about responsibility", that we're all apparently missing, isn't terribly well thought out.