Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!

he he he hehehehehhe

you seem to be avoiding respoding to me... yes you got owned.

how do you know it wont happen?

Which of your posts do you think I am avoiding responding to ? 

I dont believe it will happen because I believe the vast majority of players do not want it to happen. 

If I read your posts.. do the courtesy of reading mine when i respond.

post #232

So let me get this straight:

"I dont like any change that would make it possible for a player with nothing but his king left to win"

this bothers you because a king could capture the other king... but if i have a total army all out attacking your king and you cant move...... its a draw and your FINE with that !?

post 274

I dont see that as ridiculous at all!

The clock 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 the clock runs out the king has died

Well then, abolish the stalemate....

Oh, and by the way, I don't like the Offside rule in football (soccer in the USA), why is it illegal to stay closer to the enemy goal than the defenders, when the game's objective is to put the ball in there? ABOLISH OFFSIDE NOW!

Ok, I saw the chessbase piece. Stalemate is a part of the game, like it or not. Its one of the rules that makes chess unique. There are things I dont like but accept as being what they are : part of the rules. I dont like that I might be several pieces up and 2 moves away from mate and if my flag falls I lose on time when maybe all my opponent has is a K and a couple of pawns...... but thats chess. I have been on both sides of this kind of scenario and also on both sides of the stalemate scenario.... It bothers me more when I play FIDE rated events that I am not allowed to keep the notation in descriptive notation if I so desire. 

I simply do NOT understand the offside rule in european football ( soccer ) , I just don't get it. My only experience trying to play soccer was rather traumatic so I have a natural dislike for the game. 

Who will be SEC champs this year ??  I say Bama !   ROLL  TIDE 

LSU will be tested in their very first game !  

I agree echecs but Oklahoma might object strenuously to that !  

idiot...

the equivalent of stalemate in soccer is the "throw in"

its idiotic.... all the rules are about kicking, and then you use your hands to throw it in.

But if white had 26 moves and black only 25, that isn't fair is it? Black has to have the same number of moves :( From now on the game only wins if black plays the last move. Fair? Logical.

thats idiotic... its like in a fight you get knocked out and you insist (after you recover from your little dream) you didnt lose yet because you were about to punch him

Funny you should mention the offside rule in soccer, because it is constantly being modified to create a balance between offense and defense.  Originally the rule was very strictly enforced and no one could be forward of the ball.  Now the rule is that for a person to be off-side they must be "actively involved" and the definition of "actively involved"  is constantly being modified.   The rules of any game are not static and are modified to keep a balance.  Right now there are too many draws in Grandmaster chess.

+1!

It's exactly like that, if we are playing turn-by-turn boxing.

I understand that saying the rule has been around for centuries is no argument but neither is comparing changing the rule with a technological advancement. You're response cuts both ways. Suppose there were no stalemate rule and I said there should be. Someone like you comes along and says there hasn't been a stalemate rule for centuries so why change it. I can also say that cooking with fire in a cave worked well... why change it? An argument that works equally well from both sides isn't much of an argument.

I agree that your warfare analogy is correct. No winning army would give up because the opposing monarch was trapped. The problem is that chess is not an exact representation of war. If you are intent on using your example as to why the stalemat rule should be abolished then you can hardly call it childish when people also discuss the silliness of foot soldiers that can't retreat and only capture moving forward diagonally, cavalry that jumps over troops in a L shape, preachers that participate in battles and also only move diagonally. After all, you're example is based on realism so you have no grounds from discounting others pointing out equally unrealistic play.

Why not also factor in the fact that it would be rare, realistically, for the King and Queen to even be present in a battle and participate. It is also realistic that a King could die in battle yet his troops rally and win. So perhaps it's "silly" and unrealistic that the game should end after capturing the King. There are examples to prove my point.

In the final analysis, chess is not a game of brute force as some here have already mentioned. The stalemate rules corroborates this feeling. It forces those with an advantage in the end-game to tread carefully less that walk right into a stalemate.

The OP has mentioned that it's not right because the stalemated opponent has been "outplayed" and shouldn't get to weasel out of a loss. That is impossible. To outplay someone you have to win WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CURRENT RULES. If you can't win under the condition of whatever the rules may be, then you have not outplayed your opponent.

I personally like the stalemate rule. I believe it keeps the disadvantaged side at the board a little longer since he/she has a chance to play their opponent into a stalemate. I know that without that possibility I'd just resign. Thus stalemate, in my opinion, adds an element of tactics to the game that otherwise wouldn't exist. It complicates the game which I believe is good because I've never considered chess to be meant as a simple or straight forward game of brute force.

you dont even need the warfare analogy...

the problem with stalemate is simply summed up:

"the whole goal, point, be and end all, is to attack the king, BUT be sure not to do too good a job of it!!.... dont attack him with too much force! or it might be a draw"

This is the contradiction which annoys me. If we have a goal, lets do it whole heartedly , not with stupid caveats and conditions