Stalemates need to be removed

I concocted both Arts in 8th Grade.

I also beat a Master 2 times in a row, that same year.

You must be Kim Jong-Un!

Love the missiles, Kim.

People who think like the OP should be removed.

He also shot an elephant in his pajamas. How that elephant got in those pajamas, we'll never know.

I deduced that in 7th Grade, that to the sum of all the odds from 1 to 2n-1 equals n^2. Although, then I just stated that 1=1^2, 1+3=2^2, 1+3+5=3^2 etc.

I discovered in 8th Grade that (a+b)^2 will equal (a^2)+2ab+(b^2)

And even "Greater" that, there are exactly as many numbers in between 0 and 1, as 1 and infinity. 

Which are; (1/4)-(4/1), (3/7)-(7/3), (10/9)-(9/10), etc

I discovered in 9th Grade that (1^3)+(2^3)+(3^3)+...(n^3) will equal (1+2+3+...n)^2

Stalemates are inportant. If gone, they will rewrite the rules of endgames.

I discovered in 2nd Grade that, 10,000x10,000=100,000,000 !

And then (1 with n Zero's) times (1 with n Zero's) will equal (1 with 2n Zero's)

     Chess is nothing like an actual war. Was there ever a real war where each side had exactly the same number of identical forces? Or where each side stood by while the other made a maneuver, and then moved themselves while the other side sat still? Or where everyone stayed in a limited space, never trying to outflank or surround the enemy? Or where some soldiers can't retreat (pawns) or are unable to use 1/2 the battlefield (bishops)?

     Stalemate possibilities play an important role in many endings, give a player in an inferior position a chance to hold a draw, and makes the game more interesting.

Outflanking is litterally an endgame tactic / idea.

the F and C pawns are also called flank pawns.

Openings with these pawns and nf3 are called flank openings.

     Yes, but how many times do you see a knight leave the board entirely to circle behind enemy lines? This is a common cavalry strategy in real war. The point is that chess was based on ancient Indian war but is actually a board games with strict rules, which makes comparison to actual war ridiculous.

     Chess is a fight, a struggle, a contest rather than a war. Wars do NOT follow rules; anything goes as long as you can win. In a wrestling match, one fighter might dominate the other yet lose because of a flagrant rule violation. Fencers are not allowed to remove the tips from their foils and seriously injure their opponent in order to win by forfeit. If a winning boxer's gloves are discovered to hide thick metal plates he will be disqualified. Should one side in a war use "banned" weapons, assassinate enemy leaders, bomb civilian targets to weaken enemy resolve, or whatever to win the war there is no arbiter to disallow the victory.

     The point is that you can't complain about stalemate being an unfair and unneeded rule because there is nothing exactly like it in a real war.

I stalemated once trying to ladder mate with Queen and rook. It didn’t feel good. But I didn’t complain that stalemates should be removed. I just learned to not do it again and it rarely happens

Honestly I kinda agree with OP cuz if you're surrounded and if your king moves its captured then why should the opponent not win

     If you have the opponent's king surrounded by overwhelming forces and have checkmate in hand, creating a stalemate is just inaccurate play. Why should you win if you can't convert a simple checkmate?

I agree with OP. If I could change the rules of chess, the very first rule I would change is remove stalemate and allow the king to get captured. And then later on, deal with this en passant thing.

stale mates are stupid

Can we just all vote on it already? Like every 100 years let us have a vote.

or at least a game mode or som