Stalemate needs to be abolished...

"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."

So, because the person winning has to work harder after a brilliant situation created by the defender, stalemate as a draw should be abolished??

Are you sure you want that rationale pubically displayed?

 There are several citations to Kuafman's position in this thread why not try reading them.  Just for you I will give it one more time:

Kaufman, Larry (2009), "Middlegame Zugzwang and a Previously Unknown Bobby Fischer Game", Chess Life (September): 35

Batgirl never made a claim about Nimzovitch's position on  stalemate, she just stated that the reference to the unanotated game didn't show it.  Actually, I tend to agree with monster that the game is rather elegant reductio ad absurdum  argument on Nimzovitch's part which would have appealed to Nimzovitch's sense of human.

I would suggest you read the thread and take a beginner's course in logic before commenting further in this thread.  

Dear @Batgirl, "irrational public displays" haven't stopped @Monster to date.

So why would it now?

As long as @WinneyThePooh keeps chiming in, with a patina of sensibility, this thread is heading for 2000 posts, or more!  

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-653855.html

I  happened on this forum, while I was searching for nimzo + stalemate...

It is earily like this one.

"Little nemo" making pretty much the exact arguements Ive been making and getting the exact same arguements you guys are making... though there there seem to be more than just 2 in favour.

Great job, @Monster.  Cite another "Letters to the Editor" blog.  So persuasive.

Your Rhetorical skills are unrivaled on this chess site.  

remember the forum i posted 2 or 3 posts ago...

remember how I said if you have a logical/scientific mind you'd see it as I do..

check this post out from that forum:

(this guy is saying verbatim what Ive been saying, every point is the same)

"Little nemo" have a "current rules are the rules" moment

"Why is does this rule exist?"
"Because that's how the game is played."
"Okay, why is the game played that way?"
"Because that's what the rule says."

Hopefully, you can see this isn't answering the question.

The bolded points are things that many people like about how stalemate works, though you've definitely put your own twist to it.  It prolongs the struggle, which is also the very reason that you don't like stalemates as draws.  Your opinion is understandable, though you don't seem to understand the otherside of the coin.

Also, the notion that the inferior side has nothing to lose is true regardless of stalemates.  There is always this sort of "imbalance" when only one side has the winning chances.  There is nothing unfair about it.  The losing side is just playing for a draw.  Naturally, this should be an easier job than playing for a win.

If your reason for changing the rules is just to make the game more simple, then of course people will object. One of the aspects that draws people to this game is its complexity.  Unless you're a top GM, the complex nature of the game means that there's always something new to be learned or explored with the game, and it gives the game a lot more replay value than a game like tic-tac-toe.  And just to echo Broschevsky, what's really "natural" for chess is really a matter of opinion.

I agree with Borschevsky that your system would make a fine game of its own.  This is why it's been suggested over and over again that you should make your own variant. 

No, the rules exist because they have been thoroughly thought about for centuries, played out, experimented, changed and otherwise modified.

The chess that we play now has been played for centuries by hundreds of masters. FIDE recongizes these rules as the rules of the official chess. Any modification to these fundamental rules will make another chess variant, which you can play in the suggested sites after you get your ass out of here.

You are basically saying that we should throw over 10 000 000 games into the trashbin because of a game that you have drawn due to your lack of thinking skill. By a huge coincidence you have also shown your lack of thinking skill to accept good arguments that were supplied against your ideas.

What makes my irony meter blow up though, is the fact that you are saying that it is we who are lacking logical thinking skills.

What!?  I thought that there was just a bunch of rules written down on little scraps of paper and put into a hat and that a select group were simply pulled out at random.  One set of drawings, you get chess.  Another set, checkers. Draw again, Bridge etc.  You mean there's rhyme and reason to the way a game's rules get set?

I suggest you take that course...I clearly showed you links to chessvariants that are almost identical and others that would compete with this rule change.Your chess variant is buried by other chess variants.

BTW- Why can't you quote GM Kaufman - I have never heard him advocate  this and I have had some communication with him regarding other topics.

And yes even GMs  suggestions are sometimes wrong -- and just thinking out aloud some interesting what if .

To actually believe it is superior to the current rules without evidence displays true absence of logic.

Think about teaching someone the rules of chess. You need to explain something like "the object is to capture your opponent's king, except you don't really capture it - you create a position where you could capture it if it were your move, and there's no way for your opponent to avoid it". It would be much simpler, and in my opinion more natural, to just say "the object is to capture your opponent's king".

This is very disingenuous. It's much easier to just say, "The object is to attack your opponent's king so it cannot escape from the attack." Much shorter than the BS about capturing but not really capturing.

Still awaiting your reply to why you don't object to the drawn by three-fold repetition and drawn by 50 moves without a pawn move rules. Those certainly make less sense than drawn by stalemate. Do we have to wait til you draw a game by three-fold repetition and the 50-move rule before you reply?

And I'm really interested in what system of +1 for stalemate you prefer - allowing your opponent's clock to run out, or allowing the king to walk into check and be captured.

Thanks

On one of the other points above, Monster indeed was blaming the stalemated player for stalemate at one point in this thread but has since abandoned that position. Which, of course, leads to the question of why the rule needs to be changed if the player delivering stalemate is responsible for it and is properly punished for it by losing half a point.

"Why can't you quote GM Kaufman - I have never heard him advocate  this..."

Whether the advocates know the source of this or not, I can't say, but here it is:

In the Sept. 209 issue of "Chess Life," in an article called "Middlegame Zugzwang," Kaufman wrote:
Zugzwang is an important concept in chess. This German word might be translated literally as "relocation compulsion" or in simple English "must move." The idea is that the right to move in chess is also an obligation; passing your turn is not permitted. There are many positions in chess, mostly in the endgame, where any move you make will ruin your position; you wish you could pass, but you can't (except in the Korean version of chess). The side forced to make a suicidal move is said to be in Zugzwang. If not for Zugzwang, many more endings would be drawn. In my view, calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents the ultimate Zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken. Until around the year 1500 a stalemated player lost. Probably the draw rule was added with the advent of the powerful queen since draws became rare, but that is obviously no longer true in top-level play.

I, personally, disagree with the idea that stalemate is zugzwang because zugzwang indicates that  a player's must move but any move he makes will undermine his position (usually any move will cause a loss), whereas in stalemate, a player can't move because it would be illegal. If a person can't legally move, saying he must move is, in Kaufman's own words, "totally illogical."  Kaufman was also being disingenuous and a bit illogical with his blanket statement that "until around the year 1500 a stalemated player lost," since he's talking about a very different game than what we play.

Thanks again @Batgirl.  Sure hope the audience is reading you closely.

Hope springs eternal.

In my view, calling stalemate a draw is totally illogical, since it represents the ultimate Zugzwang, where any move would get your king taken. Until around the year 1500 a stalemated player lost. Probably the draw rule was added with the advent of the powerful queen since draws became rare, but that is obviously no longer true in top-level play.

The above quote is not indicative that Kaufman believes stalemate=win should be applied to modern chess.

And yes you are right: a player can't move because it would be illegal  --

You cannot castle out of check or have the king castle pass over any squares under attack...which is why it would be illegal to move and since no side is checkmated it is a draw.

It is important to note that Fischer completely advocated his chess960 variant over chess.

Except for the different win conditions never heard stalemate=win  advocated by any GM, Kaufman included.  I do remember him on another forum definitely suggesting  some changes but to the scoring system giving different scores depending on the type of draw: 3 move repetition, stalemate etc..  Kaufman was interested in curing the problem of the high number of GM draws. 

on the subject of rule changes - the different win conditions has been explored (like 2/3 or maybe 3/5  for stalemate)  but one possiblity I thought of that I've never heard of is:

checkmate=win, stalemate =draw EXCEPT when there are NO pawns on either side, one side has bare king and the other has no rook or queen or bishop.

If one side can attain two knights stalemate=partial victory.

-- This adds a bit to the game perhaps but not too much..

Perhaps also add stalemate of one bishop + king vs king as a partial win.

On the other hand, the partial victory thing seems a bit contrived and would not win any more favor with most chess players ....so don't feed the monster!

"The above quote is not indicative that Kaufman believes stalemate=win should be applied to modern chess."

I agree. But this is the source to the often stated idea that Kaufman supports the abolition of stalemate as a draw. Capablanca was also originally mentioned but he clearly had no thought of abolishing draw by stalemate.  Lasker is also cited for supporting the idea, but he doesn't seem to care about stalemate, but, similarly to Capablanca, that, as theory and skill develops, draws are the the natural consequence at the highest level and the game needs more complexity.  Reti too is mentioned but I haven't looked into his writings yet.

If Monster were to present his argument accurately (or honestly), he'd say there's nothing wrong with the current stalemate rule and that it makes sense. He'd then say that he's proposing that each player - instead of being responsible for ensuring his/her opponent can move - instead would be responsible for their own ability to move.

The problem with this thread was Monster's position that stalemate as draw is unfair (it's not) and that the player delivering stalemate wasn't responsible for it.

So the real question is, Who should be responsible for Player A being able to move? Is it Player A or his opponent?

Monster wants the answer to be Player A. But since Player A has no control over how his opponent moves, how can he logically be responsible for ensuring that he (Player A) can move? Player A's ability to move directly depends on Player B's moves. Monster's inability to see that led to his previous claims that the stalemated player cornered himself and cramped himself