Stalemate rule needs to be abolished!

Oh, I see...

Chess tournaments have been played for around 120 yrs and the game has been around for some 1500yrs and you think the rules that make this game so popular should be changed. Ok so you get the stalemate abolished but where does it stop if the king is allowed to move into check then can i castle across checked squares to make a hasty escape foiling my opponents attack.

If a player is in a lost position due to a series of bad moves then surely you could avoid stalemating him and win the game. If not then that is a part of the game you should work on

Looks like someone got greedy and went for three queens when two would do.

I agree with you in that I think moving your King into check should not be illegal but simply result in capture of the King and thus a loss. This would quickly teach any player to be very careful with their King. For a stalemate situation, though, there would be an exception because the player has no choice and it would be a draw.

Loomis' solution was the mate in three I'd been looking for. **Unless I'm mistaken Pauix's Qxd4 solution works, but the "random move" note is quite wrong. Black's second move must be Nc6 or c6 -- otherwise White plays c6 and the mate will be delayed to four moves instead of three. 

**oops sorry! Yes I am mistaken, just looked back at the puzzle and realized I'd completely forgetten that c6 had been played (indeed, forced as you say) 

im guessing you just drew a queen and king vs king postion, stalemate is a rule accept it no point in arguing with this troll its not even a topic of interest

Look at the chessbase article i gave above... there are some VERY complicated stalemate themes!

Why should we just accept it ?

you should "just accept" my propsal to change it.

Rules change all the time... look at the world champ cycles... the formats , the times etc etc...

No i didnt draw like this for a while...

its this chessbase article that shows how ridiculous the rule is

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7463

it constantly robs even masters who have outplayed their opponents.. and turns chess into illogical suicide variant farce

Gee as long as we are changing things why not let the pawns move backwards, in your Example of 2 Armies fighting and the winning side has the King in a situation where he can not move so they have to say well we can't win now why should the poor foot soldier ( pawns) have to get killed because he can't move backwards. If you don't like chess the way it is played then maybe you should play a different game.

But, part of being good at chess is learning how to avoid stalemate.

this is nothing to be proud of...

the player was outplayed, and before the king is about to be captured they abruptly stop the game and call it a draw... this is ludicrousness. You cant "pass" your move this is also an "illegal move" in chess.

it goes against every chess instinct.

I havent heard one "logical" arguement for the stalemate rule... only plebs shouting

"its just the rules accept it"

If the stalemate rule is changed, even super GMs have to study endgames from scratch.

Of course , there is much to be proud of . Chess is art in itself, that for first! Stalemate is as much beautiful an ending as a checkmate . Also , the goal of the game is not to capture the king , but to checkmate the king, which is completely different. But it is never told that the the checkmate is an end to the game. Objective may or may not be reached. Sometimes , it cannot be reached by neither of the players.

"Logical" arugment( how is that possible in a given set of rules without axioms), is that . The game of chess ends , with at least one side being stopped from making a legal move, not by absurd capture of the king . Therefore, there is a way needed to determine a winner while it happens. If any of the players , attacks an opponent king while the end of the game occurs he wins , guess what happens , when neither attacks an opponents king.

P.S. Do you use chess clocks ? If so , how do you deal with a winning player *bam* losing a game to the "outplayed" just as flag falls ?

So basically, the starter of this thread is sour because he blew an obviously won game with an incredibly dumb move. Sorry Monster, but not knowing how to convert very simple positions into wins is not a good reason for getting rid of a long standing chess rule. Maybe if you spent more time practicing your endgames and less time whining you wouldn't ever run into stalemates.

guys pls think about it , before you post some flipant remarks...

to "capture the king"

is much more simple and logical, than

"the king is in check right now, and has nowhere to move without check"

the 2nd one is nonsensical... and over complicates the simple 1st one.

Its like a double negative (Im not not going to the shop)

Ive done some more research on it... many masters also hold this view i have... there is also such a chess variant.. where stalemate is infact a win

I cant believe people are using arguments like "why dont you have a problem with knights jumping over pieces" this is completely different issue...

The analogy here would be knights can jump over pieces *except* if it can only move to one square ... thats like the stalemate rule...

read thru the thread for my previous comments.. im not going to explain myself again.

Many masters do not have problems with simple endgames. I feel that their complaints are more warranted. I feel you're complaining not because you feel the rule is nonsensical, but because you don't want to put effort into thinking about your moves and just want to blithely promote 3 queens. Stalemates are, for the most part, fairly easy to avoid. It takes just a few seconds of thought to avoid most stalemates.

and your obviously a fool who hasnt bothered to look thru the post and my arguements... see the chessbase links.

That draw i had that that guy posted was months ago...

Dont speculate about my motivations... Make a logical arguement...

women tend to reason like that... "oh he must be angry ....." "thats why he thinks that " "therefore he is wrong"

forget that stuff... show me where im wrong.

When I read "Stalemate rule needs to be abolished", I translate it to "someone is really peeved that they just gave up a stalemate."

In other words, someone needs more practice.

For the record, if stalemate were a win, or even if it were a 3/4 pt, then endgame theory would rather change. K+P is a stalemate. K+N+N is a stalemate.

What's next? Perpetual check is a win? ("Hey he can't get out of check!")