Stalemate needs to be abolished...

If a player cant make a legal move, his clock should be left to run out. (this is the logical conclusion when you take all the other rules into consideration) He cornered himself, commited suicide, he doesnt get a free pass. I cant choose to pass my turn at other times.

All too often in blitz with 10 seconds left and about to queen some disaster happens where the guy cant move and he is dominated. Logical things to do: lets give him 1/2 a point ??

To all the fools who want to comment: "your saying this because you drew a blitz game" of course it is you fool. But more to the point, also because stalemate is not a logical rule.

Please also do not say it is my fault that I let it happen. It is you who cant move, that is your fault. I can still move.

Would destroy the complexity of endgames.

Perhaps you should look at your play, not the rule.

Another one trying to change perfectly logical rules...

Whether or not it needs to be abolished, it hasn't been part of the rules forever. Stalemate was originally a loss for the stalemated player. It only became a draw in the 13th century, and wasn't universally accepted as such until the 19th century.

but most really good players to not want stalemate to be abolished.

For one thing to abolish stalemate would completely disrupt end game theory and practice.

That is why you should stop playing blitz

Maybe chess isn't your cup of tea. In checkers, the stalemated player loses, so you might want to consider playing checkers instead. Or Scrabble, since that game has no stalemate possbility unlike chess there's no provision for any type of draws whatsoerver - other than a tied score, which is very rare. So when you're down a few hundred pts in Scrabble, the only thing left to play for is to try losing by as few pts as possible but even that's irrelevant if you're not playing for money (ie $1/pt or whatever). Which is why Scrabble sucks ass compared to chess IMHO.

Finally, someone brings some sense to this debate - there is always a middleground if people will just look for it!   Kenpo, your solution is elegant in its simplicity - endgame theory is not disrupted, stalematers are justly punished, and the chess-watching public is entertained - everyone is a winner!

   A couple questions for you - would it be okay to substitute another substance if you're playing inland and fish heads aren't avaialble (mud for instance)?   Also what about vegan players who would be against the use of fish heads?   Why ten minutes - is this negotiable?     

I think the next person who starts another 'abolish stalemate' thread should get the fishheads.

I said this in another topic and I will say it here as well. There are two different situations when a stalemate position ends the game: if you are the losing player, netting a stalemate still gives the losing player half a point, so in a sense, it can save their game.

But if the winning player creates a stalemate situation, it is their fault for creating it and their fault only.

I hate fools who try to change a rule of the perfect game that is chess. People love chess because they love every aspect of it, and if you don't like one itty-bitty rule, go and look for another game!

Not just stalemate, but also the "abolish pawn promotions" and the "ignore check with pinned pieces" threads.

Simply put "Stalemate" in chess occurs: "when a player, whos turn it is to move, has no legal moves left to make... this is deemed a draw".

Consider a few arguements for why the stalemate rule should be abolished.
And then we will provide a simple, elegant alternative solution.

So then, firstly lets look at why we should abolish stalemate?

* Stalemate used to be a win, until it was changed to be a draw. (Ill leave it to you to do research on it if your interested in it)

* Contradictory and obscure nature of the current rules
  ie

1) You must *move* when it is your turn (you cannot "pass" your move). Even if it will mean "suicide" you *must move* if you *can*.
   (BUT if you cannot move, its a draw!) This is a contradiction... ie if you can move in zugzwang you "*must move* and "fall on the sword"
   *But* if you *can't move* (which is the highest level of zugzwang) you "get out of jail free card" with a draw. (also we later argue that the king should be allowed to step into check, so this zugzwang can be exploited)

2) The clock in chess is the "life span of the king!" If he lives life burning both ends of the candle he will die an early death... chess is all about whos king dies FIRST. If a player cannot legally move, we should "fall back" on the clock to decide who wins. (ie the clock of the player who cant move will run out because he cant move!)

3) It is illegal to *move* into check (ie even though the enemy king is all surrounded in all out attack, he cant be killed *because* he cant "legally" step into check). This is like a lawyer agruing for silly legal technicalities to get his defendent off the hook, when everyone knows the logical outcome of the courtcase. (why is this the case? We will come back to this in the 2nd part of this write-up)

* If you cannot move, you are powerless, without options, restricted, oppressed and dominated and violating the spirit of the "you must move and not pass your move" rule. Why should you get 1/2 a point?

* So we see the whole plan and point of the game is to put an attack on the king (directly or indirectly ie queenside play first)
But then the stalemate rule comes along (*just when your about to do that*) and says:
"ok... but dont attack the king too well! Dont do your job too well, be careful to prance about the king when you are totally dominating him" otherwise it could all end easily in a draw! Stalemate is the ultimate mating net... The stronger the attack you mount on the lone king, the more chance of stalemate.

* Making a stalemate a win would in no way make endgame play any easier.  In fact, it would probably make it harder.
It's true that K+P vs K would be easier, but K+R+P vs K+R would be tougher.  In general, K+R+P vs K+R would still be drawn for most positions that are drawn under the current rules, but make a stalemate a win, and a fair percentage of K+R+P vs K+R become winnable.
To give another example, K+B vs K or K+N vs K would now be winnable in some situations, but not the general case -- everything would depend on how close the opposing king is to the corner.

* chess is, by nature, already very drawish to begin with... we dont need to give players (who have been outplayed) cheap tricks for more draws ?

* Capablanca, Reti, Lasker, Nimzowitsch and many other top players have argued for a change as well.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#Proposed_rule_change

* an example game, where a very high level player escapes after being outplayed http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7463

*Ive taught many people chess... they all laugh at the stalemate rule as illogical. Probably you did too when you first saw it...

* rules change all the time in other games (eg soccer offside... ) in chess as well... we have many different time controls etc.

* Some argue Draws by forcing stalemate can be "artistic".  Agreed, however, winning by forcing stalemate is also "artistic".


Solution: (ok lets not be so negative, lets give a positive solution as well!)

The goal of chess should simply be "to *capture!* the king."
It should also be legal to "step into check" (in which case the opponent would capture the king on the next move and win)
This simple change, would solve the whole stalemate problem and make the chess rules more logically consistent.

Its much more logical, elegant and simple to have the one rule "capture the king and you win"... as opposed to the current definition of mate: "where the king cant legally move without moving into check" (in the rule we are proposing it is already implicit ... that you shouldnt move your king into check, why do we put silly restrictions on it... if the opponent wants to move his king where it will be captured OR he is forced to..... let him!   Why make it illegal ?)... 

It's been done: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stalemate-rule-needs-to-be-abolished

Try Arimaa.  Not only are there no stalemates there are no draws of any kind.  It ain't chess but what are ya gonna do?

Or chinese chess.  There a stalemate is a win for the player giving stalemate.

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/

Omg I didn't win, therefore the rules are broken and must be changed.

Highnoon52

Throwing mud would not be a reasonable substitute for fish heads.  Throwing mud is only acceptable if you are a politician running for office.

Chess is a gentleman sport, isnt it?

Well then, the stalemate giving player should resign at once!!!

It is very rude, forcing your opponent to make an illegal move. Truly unacceptable.

Learn to mate. Should we move the ability for other players to play if you suck at chess?

The stalemate move is logical.

The other player shouldn't lose just because he can't move.

Thats the same thing as winning for the person who gave stalemate. That would just waste lots of time and ruin the game of Chess and make it boring. Just look before you move and make sure your opponent is able to make a move in the endgame when your winning.

You just suck at chess if you cannot avoid a stalemate. Go play checkers with the other little girls.