Stalemate Sucks.

Then whos wins if there is no stalemate?

A couple of years back I was playing Mike Janiro in a quad at the Portland Chess Club.  I got lucky as black, grabbing the initiative, getting a couple of pawns ahead and then a knight and some pawns ahead.  I'll be darned in my wily opponent wasn't playing for stalemate!  And it nearly succeeded!  Fortunately his try wasn't forced and I found a good move and went on to win.  But it almost gave me a heart attack!

your right is is a chess forum, we are debating parts of the chess game, if you dont like the debate i suggest you should be the one to get out of here, and take your bad manners and closed mind with you, clown.

You just went full Gavinator. Don't go full Gavinator man.

Yes, It does. Bullet game.

here is something to learn...how to avoid the stalemate

Wonder how many people said that when people talked about changing the rule to make stalemate a draw?

Wonder how many people said that when they talked about allowing pawns to move twice on the first move?

Wonder how many people said that when they talked about changing how the pieces actually moved?

People debate rules of a game all of the time, and guess what? Sometimes rules change. To say that a debate is a waste of time or to say it is a waste of time to ever talk about changing how a game is played is honestly both foolish and ignorant of history and how things evolve.

Sadly I would have expected both more and better manners from a titled player. That makes me far more sad about chess than anyone discussing a rule (and many people in the thread were actually debating and not just trolling) or even than people making tons of troll threads on how the parham is the best thing ever.

I expect titled people of a game or well known players in a sport to be the ambassadors of the sport/game and to represent it with honor and dignity. Otherwise they simply hurt that which they like so much. If everyone thought that titled chess players were polite, approachable, and willing to discuss the different rules and points of chess than more people would try the game as opposed to if everyone thought the titled players of chess were rude, and arrogant which would drive people to avoid the game all together. They would naturally transfer the qualitied they see in the titled players to all players. You shouldn't tell anyone to get out and that they are wasting your time. Then on top of that to insult their level of play, that one is just truly sad for a titled player.

But of course, act how ever you want and choose to read a 6 page thread on a topic that is clearly defined in the title and they say that some how it wasted your time when you knew what you were getting in to. That is like saying it is a waste of your time to read threads that are titled "The Parham is the best opening ever!!", you know exactly what the thread is so if you don't like it or don't want to hear it................ then don't read it!

Of course, there are times when your opponent is losing and will play for stalemate to avoid the loss.  It then becomes the challenge of preventing your opponent from achieving stalemate and of securing the win -- not always so easy...

Nice one ChessSponge, i could not have put it better myself.

No it is not a stupid rule,  it is a rule that punishes stupid players.

Why should your opponent resign when you are incapable of mating him.

Stalemate is there so that players can be more careful, tactics, and to make sure these positions are draws:

- K+p

- K+N

- K+B

- K+NN

K+Q vs K+ f-pawn

If stalemate was a win, the changes would be very major.

How do they abuse it? Many people tend to fight to the end, and you should respect that. Only in a few cases are they doing it because they want to waste your time. You said your tore apart your opponent. So then it's your responsibility that there isn't stalemate. And if there is, I can guarantee it was your fault for making the stalemate happening in the first place. Minority rules, everyone!

Maybe you didn't really tear him apart then. Maybe it only appeared that way for a little while. The ability of someone to force a stalemate is something that you have to consider. This months endgame column in Chess Life highlights exactly what you are talking about. Grandmaster Naroditsky provides a game between two other grandmasters where only  precise play forces a stalemate in an otherwise completely lost position.  If the two choices are losing, or forcing a stalemate, wouldn't the better choice be to force a stalemate? It's not a stupid rule, it's a rule that is intended to further the objective of the game. The objective of the game is to capture the opponents king. If you cannot do that in the time allowed, you will not win.

EXACTLY!  And not all stalemates are stupidity by the opponent.  There is skill to stalemating.  Take the position at the bottom of the message.  I build a stalemate cage, and drew, fair and square!

Stalemate doesn't suck.  Those that whine about stalemate, and those that don't understand the value of the draw, SUCK!

Check out the game I played below back in 2008.  The starting position is after Black makes the horrendous move, g7-g5:

I agree it doesn't really make sense, however, it adds an interesting element to the game so therefore I'm for it! 

illegal fowls

you can't say that, it's just rule