Stalemate needs to be abolished...

Monster,

If I do not like the no-hands rule in soccer, I may opt to start playing soccer with the house rules "one is allowed to touch the ball."  What I won't do is to go on soccer.com forums to try to spearhead a change to allow hands to touch the soccer ball.

Stalemate is one of the defining characteristics of chess in the same way that the no-hands rule is a defining characteristic of soccer.  Change it, and the game is no longer the same.  In other words, get rid of stalemate, and the game is no longer chess.  This is why no one wants this aspect of the game to change.  It's not about people being "afraid of change," or not wanting to change something that is already established "because it's established."

Since you're basically suggesting to make a different game out of chess, the reasonable thing to do is to simply create that different game without altering chess.  There is no necessity to change chess itself if your version of the game can be brought to reality without altering the integrety of chess.  But you seem to think that the official rules of international chess must be changed, and I'm still not sure why.  The offical rules of chess won't prevent you from playing any other variant of chess as far as I can tell, though you obviously cannot say that you are playing "real" chess if you are playing no-stalemate chess (and perhaps that's what you want to change).  That's not a serious issue, however, and it's definitely not a good reason to change the offical rules.

Like I said, creating a variant may eventually lead to mainline chess adopting the no-stalemate rule if it is indeed a good rule, so I don't see what the problem is (I guess I'm asking the same question for the third time).

EDIT: You asked why it can't be the official rules that become the variant.  The reason is that it takes much less work and agony to have no-stalemate chess as the variant.  Since they would both accomplish the same thing, why not choose the path of least resistance?  This is why I say that creating a variant is more practical than trying to change existing rules.

The only credible variation I have seen in chess in the time I have been playing (34 years) is the 960 one.  The game as it stands is a beautiful thing.

That's true, mainly because it changes the game quite a bit.  I'm not saying that such a variant won't be accepted by the chess playing community, but the players will first have to get used to and ease into this "new" chess before they even consider it a serious variant.  Accomplishing that would require a lot of time.  We may not even witness it in our lifetime.

:-D

Yet another example of why blitz isn't real chess.  If you had more time, you could easily avoid the stalemate.  So, my solution is that stalemate stays and blitz should be abolished.  :)

And yes, if you abolished stalemate, then all endgame theory would have to be re-written.  Since the endgame is the one of the most important phases of a "real" chess game and many middlegame strategies are based on trading down to a winning endgame and blitz all but eliminates the need to learn endgame theory, because you rarely get down to an endgame in such a short game, blitz should be abolished.  Case closed.  :)  

Please read post #16 and stop posting your drivel of WHY YOU THINK I want the rules changed.
Kens mum should probably stop too, just repeating like a parrot on lsd.

I think it is absurd for you to expect me to read every post in thread before I start posting my opinions with regard to the thread title or the original post. I wasn't singling you out, I was posting in response to the general complaint, but it still applies to you. 

After your comment about trying to justify allowing your opponent into a position that they had no legal move, as if it is the fault of the rules, I wanted to help you see your misguided thinking.

If you let someone take away your ability to checkmate them, it is "your" fault, not the fault of the rules. No where in the chess rules does it prevent someone from checkmating anyone else. This isn't boxing, there aren't judges. If you don't like the rules, get better or don't play. It is simple. Not playing the absurdity of bullet chess would help.

BTW, I don't really care why you think the rule should be changed. I was here to comment on why I think it shouldn't be changed. What I think is far more important to me than what you think. It isn't that I think my opinion is necessarily better in general, but because I am more dependent on what I think, than what you think.

I realize that I am repeating myself, though part of that is because you still haven't answered my question.  Regardless, action is dying down in this thread so I'll try to make less posts in here from this point on, if at all.

I hope you got some closure to your stalemate issue from reading the posts in this thread and understood why most people don't want the stalemate rule to be changed.

Hey, it's easier than actually having a rational discussion about the merits of an idea with those who have opposing views.

Agree -- repetition is a perfectly rational response to a question that is being dodged.

Same idiotic topic put up by the same idiot.

Monster with no shame.

It's not the topic that the problem.  Any topic should be able to be discussed or debated.  The problem is that the OP considers his opinon not just unassailable but too pristine to oppose. His reponse to anyone who dares to oppose his view, or even to examine and elaborate on possibilities not to his liking, has mainly been name-calling, nose-thumbing, insults and chest-thumping. Such actions by the originator generates non-constuctive replies and a worthless thread. 

I'm not even sure who to oppose in this thread.

They are all so damned smrt.

So K + p vs K = Trivial win?

R + K vs K = easy win for beginner player who now accidentally stalemates.

Huge change to endgame for sure  .... This no stalemate rule has been suggested along with making 3 move repetition illegal or a loss for the person repeating the position for the 3rd time. A very poor variant and doubtful if anyone would want to play it.

Looks to me like this new rule takes AWAY rather than ADD to the beauty of chess. 

BTW - the rule is entirely logical. A player can complete his turn if he has any legal move available. Thus, in the case of checkmate his king is under attack and surrounded and in the case of stalemate he does not need to move -- sort of equivalent where the palace is surrounded, the kingdom is lost but the king escaped. 

So entirely logical.

Let's not forget the profound impact on the idiomatic use of the word "Stalemate".

Former wife?

"the kingdom is lost but the king escaped."

Wonderful way to express it!

I think the following ideas from particular cultures have helped to shape chess as we know it, contributing to the stalemate rule.

1) Kings not killing kings

2)Instead of bringing dishonor upon one's self,not killing a defenseless king, when his army and kingdom are gone, so he can instead live with the dishonor

3) A king not being able to make a choice(move) that ends him, for the good of his kingdom/army

I've read somewhere in the chess.com forums that a stalemate is just a necessary condition for the stalemated king to place an impenetrable and immobile force field around it, after which it becomes an untouchable piece.  I always preferred this explanation to most others since I really like the idea that the game of chess took place in a magical, high fantasy setting.  I think Battle Chess had the queen represented as a powerful sorceress.