Stalemate sucks and it needs to be removed

Boxing and MMA rule:

"You protect yourself . . . at all times."

Hanging a queen is something that can happen with a legal move.

Leaving a king in check (or moving a king into check, or moving away a piece that is blocking check) is a disallowed illegal move and needs to be undone. Moving Pg2-g5 orNg1-e3 or Bc1-g4 or Rh4-b5 are also illegal moves and need to be undone (even if you are able to capture the Knight on e3 or the Bishop on g4 or the Rook on b5 or the Pawn on g5 you are not allowed to do so because the move was impossible to legally make). In FIDE two illegal moves lose the game.

Asking why the King cannot be captured is similar to asking why bishops have to move diagonally, why rooks have to move orthogonally, why knights have to move in an L shape and are allowed to jump over pieces, why a pawn can move one or two squares on the first move and only one thereafter.

Pretty much every endeavor has basic rules. One example is the arithmetic proof below that only fails because of violating a basic rule:

Let a=b

Multiplying both sides by a gives a*a = a*b

subtracting b*b from both sides gives a*a - b*b = a*b - b*b

factoring both sides gives (a+b) * (a-b) = b * (a-b)

removing the common factor gives a+b = b

substituting b for a (because there were initially set to be equal) gives b+b=b or 2*b=1*b

removing the common factor gives 2=1

basic underlying rules are critical to avoiding ridiculous results.

@jetoba

Why the rule.

In Chess, stalemate is a draw.

In Xiangqi stalemate is a win.

In Chess, perpetual check is a draw.

In Xiangqi, perpetual check is not allowed.

---

Saying "It's the rules" doesn't mean anything.

---

The initial rules says you can capture a king that moves into check.

Then somebody added another rule. You have to warn the King that he is in check. Then somebody added another rule, the King cannot move into check.

---

"Saying it's the rules" doesn't mean anything. Why the rules?

The rules could be the other way, as it is in Xiangqi.

It is other way Xiangqi, Chinese Chess.

You don't need an explanation for everything bro no offense but go ask the people who originally created the idea of stalemate if your so caught up on an explanation for everything

Personally it allows for many neat tricks

You can't win with just Knight or Bishop even though you are 3 points ahead.

Now if the Knight is a modern Helicopter, then that's something else.

No cavalry has ever trampled its own troops to get in front of the battle line.

1. Nf3

That's actually not a bad idea.

Half of each.

It cannot jump over its own troops, but can jump over enemy's troops!

become a good player, you wont say this again....

Stalemate adds so much to the subtlety of the game . I understand your frustration , but as your understanding of the game grows you will appreciate this . I don’t mean this at all in a condescending way . Once you study many master games and the history of great chess games then you will find examples of incredible escapes through stalemate which can spring from nowhere occasionally . I was held to a draw in the British Rapidplay in Leeds many years ago . Three pawns up and I wondered why my opponent was playing on …. I soon found out … he sacrificed his rook and my full point turned to a dusty half point in an Instant . Stalemate will come to your rescue as much as it frustrates you . So don’t worry and learn to love the complexities of our shared game . All the best , Simon

If your opponent managed to endlessly check your king while you were "winning", you weren't really winning. In fact if anything, you should lose 2/3 of a point for letting him force a stalemate or perpetual check LOL