Stalemate sucks and it needs to be removed

Agree.

In all other board games, stalemate is a loss (checkers), including other chess variants (shogi, XiangQi) and including historical chess variants (Shatranj).

Unlike Shogi, for example, the rules for chess came about spontaneously and randomly, and so illogical rules like stalemate and castling got in. Without them the rules would be simpler, the game more interesting and more resultative.

If chess didn't exist at all and he invented it as a new game, there wouldn't be a castling and stalemate.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/107946423696

We might also not see pawns being able to move two squares on their first move (eliminating en passant) and pawns capturing the same way they move (eliminating pawn chains and blocked positions).

That would also eliminate the beauty of many defensive tactics and result in games being resigned more quickly.

Every K+P vs K ending would be winnable in any position where the pawn was not simply lost. Many K+N vs K or K+B vs K ending would be played to the end because there was a chance of stalemate. Under FIDE rules (or whatever entity replaced FIDE in this theoretical situation) flagging against a lone king would be a loss on time as long as the flagging player's army included an h pawn or an a pawn (and other positions such as White Kc8, Pc7, Pb6, Rb7, Qb8, Na8, Ba7 vesus Black Ke8 would be a stalemate against White, with the result that White flagging with Pb2, Pc2 , K, Q, queenside B, N and R versus a lone Black King would be a White loss due to the potential stalemate).

what about that 50 move rule that one always get me - i really quite understand why either

Stalemate in chess is crucial as it illustrates the value of precise positioning and strategic foresight. It teaches players the necessity of avoiding careless moves and highlights the defensive potential in seemingly lost positions. Stalemates showcase the depth of chess strategy beyond mere checkmate, emphasizing the complexity and beauty of the game.
 
 
 

Have you ever played a game that ended in the capture of the opponent's king? The object of the game is checkmate, not to "kill the king". The king, in fact, never dies but is forced into surrender. It is about honor.

Then you played the game wrong. As I said, the object of the game is checkmate. The king is never captured. Most of the rules of the game are based upon this fact and don't make sense at all if you allow the capture of the king in any scenario. I, personally, would never want to win a game this way. Most opponents I face, wouldn't miss check 99.99% of the time anyway. It is about honor. The game was made, ostensibly, to simulate an honorable and fair war since in real life, war is usually never honorable nor fair.

Exactly, you force them to tap out. You do not kill your opponent. Honor. Most games are predicated upon honor in every culture. Real life isn't always honorable, but most competitions are created with an intention towards an honorable spirit. It's called being a good sport for a reason.

Calm

No idea what this has to do with anything. Pretty sure chess predates Alexander the Great by a few hundred years.

This discussion has reached a point with one player persistently demanding that the rules be changed to the way the player wants them to be while the other players persistently refuse to simply change the centuries-long global rules to suit that one player. Neither side is ever going to convince the other. I'll put my arbiter hat and declare a draw due to five-fold repetition.

How and when are pretty closely connected. Nobody knows exactly how and when chess was born. We do know that Alexander the Great had nothing to do with it though.

Even if so, capturing a king in war time was usually the objective, not killing them. In order to obtain ransom or political benefit. Capturing a piece in chess is akin to killing, while checkmate is closer to real life capturing. Therefore, by your own logic, checkmate is a superior objective compared to capturing.

Make that six-fold repetition.

PS Capture the king is a variant that can be selected in the custom rules if not already in an existing variant. If anybody really wants that they have the option of finding a like-minded opponent.

Listen again.

How, when, who, where are all closely connected. Proving any of them usually requires the knowledge of some or all of the others. You cannot possibly know how somebody invented chess if you don't even know who they are, or when and where they created it. Your claim of how chess was born might make some sense but also might have nothing to do with anything. Again, Alexander the Great has nothing to do with the how, when, who, where of chess. Why bring it up? That video has nothing to do with how, when, who nor where chess was invented.

Also, the idea of announcing check is thousands of years old as is the rule of not moving into check or leaving the king in check. If we're following the logic that the length of time an idea was in place, it has more merit then capturing the king when left in check has less merit.

Is one always greater than zero though ?

In math there are ways to scuff numbers

How should I know? Nobody does.

Having an idea that is worth nothing and is impossible to prove is greater than admitting that you have no idea?

Nice. Have fun with that.

2 bad ideas are worse than 0 good ideas

I believe that's -2

All your doing is adding numbers to an argument that shouldn't have that