Some of the most impressive draws in the game involve forced stalemates. Some of the subtleties that make endgames so elegant involve knowing enough to avoid stalemates. It would be such a shame to rob chess of the beauty of these tactics.
Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!

Some of the most impressive draws in the game involve forced stalemates. Some of the subtleties that make endgames so elegant involve knowing enough to avoid stalemates. It would be such a shame to rob chess of the beauty of these tactics.
goose .... on the loose.
you havent read any of the previous posts.
your comment is very typical of the average pro-stalematers (rationalizing backward)
read OBIT's posts and prepare to

I'm not disputing the logic, I'm saying that the rules as they stand make for a far more elegant balancing act that I find much more aesthetically and logically satisfying.

If we make this two points clear, you'll see that stalemate is completely logic:
- In order to win a chess game, you have to checkmate your opponent.
- If you can't checkmate, you can't win.
Considering stalemates as a win would enter in contradiction with the points above. A side with no possibility of checkmate could actully win the game, which is quite stupid. Check these examples:
So, if you want to change the goal of the game, you are changing not a rule, but all the game itself. I like chess the way it is, it forces the winning player to be focused on the board.

Didn't think this debate was still on. I'm pro-stalemate for several reasons, but lets put that in the freezer for now, I'm sure most if not all off my argumentation is allready said by others.
So if I get you correct, then you would like to change the stalemate rule mainly because it is illogical.
If I empty my mind from all off the current regulations and just think about logic consistency off rules, Then yes I agree it is logical that if your king can move into check and can't do anything else, he has to make that move and lose.
Following this logic I would like to view at the first move off the pawn. I always found it really illogical that the pawn could move 2 squares on its first move and then never again. It is not consistent, why should the pawn be given that extra square at the start? And if it does move just one square at the first move, why take away the option to use it later on? At the early stage of chess, pawns could just move one square every move. The rule changed because they wanted chess to speed up a bit, with having the ability to move the pawn 2 squares development is quicker, attacks can be executed earlier and the fight for the center can start from the very first move.
The change had a non-intended side-effect. Pawns could now sometimes leap passed enemy pawns. This was not the intention so they came up with en passant allowing to take the leaping enemy pawn, as if it had moved just one square. Following the background is the only thing which gives en passant any logic. Since the move by itself has no logic whatsoever. You now know e.p. was created because another rule we created (having the option to move a pawn two squares on its first move) had an effect we did not like! Well that seems enough motivation to me.
Despite that it is illogical that the pawn can move two squares at once, I like the rule, because of the given motivation behind it and don't want to see it changed.
Now my question: would you prefer to change the rule that the pawn can move two squares at its first move (following the logic) or would you prefer to keep the rule the same? I'm very interested in your motivation whatever answer you might choose.

Allowing for the desirabaility/need to move this to another forum,, I would prefer my suggestion that pawn should also be able on first move to drop back either vertically or diagonally into square vacated by a piece, keeping en passant rule unchanged. This could improve defensive possibilities.

If we make this two points clear, you'll see that stalemate is completely logic:
In order to win a chess game, you have to checkmate your opponent. If you can't checkmate, you can't win.Considering stalemates as a win would enter in contradiction with the points above. A side with no possibility of checkmate could actully win the game, which is quite stupid. Check these examples:
So, if you want to change the goal of the game, you are changing not a rule, but all the game itself. I like chess the way it is, it forces the winning player to be focused on the board.
Well there you have it....

This thread is gonna go on forever with the same points from both sides, so let me sum it up:
Pro-Stalematers:
-Interpret the rule of chess that you need to checkmate to win.
-Think that it would destroy endgame theory if stalemate was a loss
-Think that good players are taught to avoid stalemate
-Think that there are masterpieces in history involving the defender forcing stalmate
The Anti-Stalemater:
-Interprets the rule of chess that you need to capture the king to win the game
-Sees stalemate as a zugzwang
-Claims that the Pro-Stalematers only reason for thinking stalemate should be a draw is because it is now
-Probably made this thread because he was looking for trouble.

OK, I guess the basic point of dispute comes down to illegality of moves, so let's talk about that. There is no dispute about a certain class of illegal moves, those being the situations where a player tries to move a piece to a square not defined by the way the piece moves. For example, if we have a bishop on b1, we can't move it to h8. Bishops have to move along diagonals, we say.
So far this is all very easy to explain, understandable even a five-year-old. Except, then we get to the concept of moving into check. So, we say, a bishop can move from b1 to c2, but not if the move exposes the king to check. OK, I suppose we can think of this as an illegal move as well, but you have to admit it feels different. The bishop moved along a diagonal, just like bishops are supposed to, but the move happens to allow RxK. Besides, what's the big deal with king captures? When I see kindergartners play chess, sometimes I'll see a player capture his opponent's king, at which point he'll wave the king in the air and say "I got your king!" Then a new game will start. The matches seem to flow just fine when king captures are allowed, at least when kindergartners are playing.
Well, I suppose we adults have higher esthetic standards. We can't have a game end with a random king capture, because that would be an ugly finish. As it turns out, though, king captures aren't forbidden because of esthetics. I learned the real reason while rummaging through some 500-year-old family records sitting in a box in the attic. So, while this may be divulging a 500-year-old family secret, I guess it's time to let the cat out of the bag...
Anyway, here's the story:
Back in the 15th century, there was a king known as Richard the Corpulent who was renowned for never losing a chess game. Well, it's not that King Richard was an exceptional player, but it seemed like every time a member of his cabinet had him in trouble, his opponent had overlooked a crusher that would surely have won the game.
Now, within the kingdom lived one of my ancient relatives, known to the other villagers as Poor Bob. Since all the members of his cabinet happened to have business elsewhere that day, King Richard somewhat inexplicably accepted a challenge from Poor Bob. So, a game of chess was played between the king and this commoner. As described in the family records, during the game Poor Bob tried an ambitious but speculative attack against the king, and for a while King Richard defended his position well. However, then the king captured a piece with his bishop, forgetting that the bishop was pinned against the king. Jubilant by the sudden turn of events, Poor Bob snapped off the king emphatically, held the piece over his head, and shouted, "Yessss, I have his king! King Richard hath gone down in defeat!" The crowd in the village green watched this in stunned silence.
King Richard did not take kindly to Poor Bob's antics. He responded, "Not true, peasant. You must advise your opponent when he moves in check." He then called for the Royal Executioner, and Poor Bob was dragged to the chopping block and beheaded. Shortly after that, the rules of chess were amended to forbid king captures - games can only be won by attaining a position where a presumed capture of the king occurs on the following move.
So, now you know. Stop reading too much into the illegality of moving in check. It's just a dumb rule with no real foundation, and my family is to blame.

As I mentioned ........ read #579 and then #580

Chess is a game, game rules do not have to be logical. Game rules are what ever people want them to be, no matter how illogical, silly, dumb, etc, they are.

I do consider Chess to be a game of war. To me, it's a king and his army vs another king and his army. In any real war in such situation, it would be a great victory to capture and kill the king of the opposing army. In that sense, chess today is unique, and weird even, in that we win by having the final move as able to capture the king on the very next move, without actually capturing the king. If we win a war by killing the king of the opposing kingdom, are we truly victorious by trapping the king with our soldiers, or are we victorious by beheading the king?
Honestly, changing the rule where we have to actually capture the king, and thus getting rid of stalemate and the rule that it is illegal to move your king in check, doesn't really bother me as much, especially after reading the posts written by Artsew and OBIT.
Not sure if this is much coming from me, but you can put me not as a Pro or an Anti Stalemater, but more of one who likes to keep things more simple, and getting rid of the rule that you cannot move in check, thus getting rid of stalemate, and changing the means of victory, would make things more simple, in my honest opinion.

I think about the phrase I sometimes see in chess literature: the King (for example) hides away on the f1-square. Is it really hiding? Not really, because we can still plainly see it. The chessboard, to us, looks so small, with its 64 squares. We tower over it ominsciently. Each individual square is, consequently, tiny, to our perspective.
But if chess really is like a war, that makes the chessboard a battlefield. A battlefield is large... very large. It has hills, caves, foxholes, and many other places where crafty people can hide. Many times, enemy troops in a hurry can, conceivably, pass right by a squadron pinned down in a certain area and never spot them.
The chessboard is the same way. We have the full view, yet we only see what we allow ourselves to see. How many times did we say, in our early days of learning and playing the game, "Aw, I didn't even see that Knight there!", even though it was on the board the whole time.
If the chessboard represents a battlefield, then it represents an area that is much larger than it appears to us. Anybody who compares the chessboard to said battlefield must realize this symbolism. With this in mind, the idea that a King can "hide" on f1 makes much more sense, especially given the Pawn structure and material configuration, to say nothing of the "battlefield" that the chessboard poorly represents--it being a flat surface, or even a graph, depending on how one views it.
So, if a stalemate occurs with a Black King on f1, White King on e3, and White Queen on g3, people only see three pieces in very close proximity, on a tiny chessboard--tiny compared to a battlefield. But each square necessarily represents a very large area of land in order for the ever-popular war analogy to make sense. That said, the White Queen does not necessarily even see the Black King at all--he may be out of her line of vision, over the horizon, etc., depending on how big of a battlefield we're talking about. In fact, the White King and White Queen may not even see each other either.
We think about the Black King being stuck on a square: a very small patch of land to which he is pinned down, and therefore his capture is imminent. In fact, the f1-square may represent many acres, which may contain a plethora of places to hunker down and hide from the enemy for as long as possible.
This, to me, helps stalemate make a lot more sense, in terms of the real-life, logical way of thinking about it. Ultimately, it is just a game, and as such it will never make perfect sense nor equate fully to real life. It's not supposed to. It's a game. Just play the game and enjoy it!

I have news for you.... my mission in life is not to make you happy , but to make me happy.
And dont tell me when i will be happy. Thank you.
This chess variant where stalemate is a win already exists.. But NOONE plays this game. We are simply saying "the current chess" should be a variant and our one should be the MAIN chess, come over to our side.
Yes, I can already hear the thoughts in your little brains... "what an arrogant ******* this guy is.... how dare he ? bla bla bla"
hehe.... please realise... by telling me my version should be the "variant" and yours the "main" you are doing EXACTLY the same thing as I am.
Yours is the current established rules? so what , who cares... does a chess world champion stay world champion forever... no.. he is challenged and dethroned, things change... everything is up for challenge... no matter how outraged YOU are.

Just curious, if stalemate is a win because the stalemated side must let their king be captured, what would you say is the result in this position and why?
EDIT: I know it's not likely, but as it could happen, there has to be a response.
Note: this position is legal:

Just curious, if stalemate is a win because the stalemated side must let their king be captured, what would you say is the result in this position and why?
EDIT: I know it's not likely, but as it could happen, there has to be a response.
Note: this position is legal:
This has been covered numerous times... the only reason im bothering to reply is because youve gone to the effort of posting e.g's
The side who cannot move is powerless, and cannot fullfill the rule "you must move" therefore we should wait (run down his clock) "until he does find a move to make"
If you cant move -> youre powerless -> you should lose.
because there is nothing to respond to.., pls read 563 more closely and then my other posts here for the WHY we want to change it.