Stalemate needs to be abolished...

"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.

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.

hmmmmmmmm
He says the rule is "totally illogical"
He says the reason this rule was instated is no longer relevent today
1+1=2
He *doesnt* then go on to say: "despite ALL this, I think it would be totally cool if we keep stalemate as a draw dude, awesome, cozzzz u know history and tradition and all that jazzzzz.... plus it kinda makes the game exciting, know what I mean?"
1+1+1=3

This is your relationship with stalemate

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!

It looks to me like your suggestion would result in a deflation of the available rating points.  The points awarded need to total 1.0.  Why not .75-.25 in favor the giver.  

One of the best "summing up" in about 1400 posts. Unfortunately! I agree. Read closely and learn. pls do

Must checkmate opponent -> win

Failed to checkmate opponent -> not a win

Yes thats the very high level summary way to put it... now delve into the implications and details.

If your idea of a debate is to just goto memebase and copy and paste unoriginal pics, without making any points, then youre just annoying.

Ive been tollerant with you upto now.. posting stupid "shaming" pictures, ie avoiding the logical debate and posting pics of attractive girls (I noticed you didnt use your face) making condescending faces and all these stupid memes that everyone already is sick of.

Since you love your memes you might also want to google:

Come on, Monster.  You're basically saying that you are right because that's how it would work using your system, and that is why your system should be used.  That's just circular logic.

 stalemate =1-0 i dont have to calculate to make sure you have legal moves left to make, you dont have to do this for me either (equality, fair)

stalemate = 1/2 the player in the strong position has to calculate to ensure you have legal moves, you dont (inequality, unfair)

Why is this circular ?

Its like in soccer after a team scores a point, they have to put on a 5kg backpack on each player of the leading team but not the others.

And the reason that playing for a draw should be easier than playing for a win in a given position for a particular player is that draws are worth less than wins, not to mention they don't provide any point advantage since both players gain an equal amount of points.  That's not too hard to figure out, though there could definitely be other reasons.

Your reasoning is very bad.
So a losing player should be given extra resources and proped up because he is only playing for a draw and not the full point ? A draw means *equality*.. if you reached "equality" just because you were proped up and given an unfair advantages then its obviously not a true equality.

I haven't read more than 20% of this thread (pls read my post #16), but, has it been explained why I should be responsible for my opponent's legal moves? In no other game/sport that I know of is this a player's responsibility. It seems if you've let yourself out of legal moves, you should be punished in some form. This is why when explaining stalemate to first-timers, they ALWAYS have the "smelling onions" face. Every other game/sport they're familiar with has the logical implication that *I* am not responsible for *your* ability to continue. It's anti-competetive, or, cooperative. The entire game we are at competetive odds, but then, for a moment, it's possible for us to be on the same side, as I now must consider your ability to continue. So, yes, it currently results in a different result, as it is a different situation than mate, but it's just bunk for competitors to ever be cooperative. You have put it perfectly... the games logic is turned on its head.

To me, it all seems to stem from the currently immutable rule of a player never moving twice in a row. That is why you don't actually take the King when the opponent is unable to remove check; you just win. What you have done is put the opponent in a position where she no longer has any legal moves (remove check or nothing). The only way this is different from Stalemate is that the King is not in check. yes The player still has no legal moves, but the King isn't in danger. So, they are different situations and the players should have their scores ajudicated differently. However! The clock rule (your move, your clock runs out, you lose, already solves this conundrum! stalemate =1/2 also contradicts this clock rule, not only the you cant pass your move![at the very moment you SHOULbe punished for passing!]) This is why I've changed my mind from stalemate-giver getting a full point to getting something less, but still getting more than stalemate-reciever.

If they changed the rule so that you took the King when check can not be removed, and the opponent therefore can't make ANY move, thereby moving twice in a row, now the stalemate-giver would simply move twice in a row and the game would not end due to the stalemate, though I believe many, many games would end on the next 2 or so moves, as many, many times the King would be checked & then mated. I fully believe very few would want this to be included in our holy pursuit of Caissa.

The other currently immutable rule, that if done away with, would also remove a portion of our stalemate problems is the King never being able to move into/through check. I also fully believe very few would want this in our game.

So, instead of changing those 2 rules, why don't we just change the adjudication of the outcome, and make it something like .75-.25 in favor of the giver? The game will still be played in almost wholly the same fashion, but rewards would be changed. It all just seems logical to this patzer.

Im impressed, im in matter of minutes you have shown yourself to understand this whole debate! There are quite a few other philosophical points to it, like how stalemate=1/2 effects the endgame nagatively by making small advantages vanish, and how it gives the defender too many saving resources. But... most people dont get past "the current rules are the rules, thats why its a draw"