We Abolish Stalemate! Today!

Stalemate is a communist idea... "you can't move (work)? No problem we split the points".
It makes chess drawish, bland, boring. From today we change the rule to "capture the king", and end this stalemate nonsense once and for all.

If you can't move... your clock runs out (anyhow you look at it -- stalemate makes no sense)

This is some of the worst trolling I've seen here: just clumsy and dumb

According to chess historian Henry A. Davidson, the concept of stalemate as a draw originated in 14th C Italy, and spread through most of Europe in the following centuries.

At various times and places, stalemate has been considered a win or half-win for the attacking side, a win for the defender, disallowed altogether, and a forfeited move for the defender (resulting in consecutive turns for the attacker!).

Embrace communism, it is desperate woman, having been spurned by China in favor of mercantilism.

+1

Yes, end stalemate by saying, "With the advantage of position and possibly material, you could not successfully checkmate my King; therefore, you lose." Yes, yes, I like that concept - good one. You, of course, looked at it from the wrong perspective. It obviously should be, you lose when you cannot win.

Stalemate is ingrained into chess. No serious chessplayer would contemplate changing it.

There are countless tactics/combination problems ranging from beginner to grandmaster level where the solution is to force a stalemate from a position that looks like the other side is about to deliver checkmate.

Chess should be "capture the king".

Not the weird "checkmate.. your king can't move without being captured"

You're a leftie?   xD

What difference does it make? If it makes you feel better, capture the king. When you checkmate someone, just tell them they have to move their king into check (again). then you can capture it. You might get some strange looks if it's in  a tournament though.

Stalemate actually do. For one reason, even if you (or your opponent) IS stuck in some kind of stalemate, then you had to sit there and wait till the clock runs out! What'll happen when there's a 30 minute remaining! Besides, this will break the balance and purpose of the entire game!

Although I do have a better point of changing it: Give the player checking his/her opponent another chance: Undo the last step, and think of a better way!

So both sides lose when one of them resigns?

What are you going to abolish next?  Bishops?

You put yourself in such a bad corner you can't even make a legal move... so I have to split 1/2 my point with you. (Sounds pretty communist to me). Also the responsibility is on me to make sure you king has moves... it's like welfare payments.

If the worker owns the means of production but does not know how to use them, he has no right owning them.
I would love to lie and claim that comes from das kapital or John Maynard Keynes when he had a good laugh at Karl's works but sadly it is one of mine.

Sounds like you may have recently stalemated someone from a winning position, so now we should change a rule that's been in place for over 500 years.

Either that or you're just a bad troll.

Stalemate has to be a draw for consistency reasons. If stalemate was a way to win the game, then insufficient mating material would not longer be insufficient, so checkmate would not even have to be possible. Even if you say "checkmate has to be possible otherwise the stalemated player doesn't have to move since it's already a draw"...what about this:

Now a player could force stalemate, despite not being able to force checkmate, and then say "oh i was trying to checkmate him when accidentally stalemating him so i should win", a contradiction, In other words, stalemate would be a win in some cases, and remain draw in others, which makes absolutely no sense.

Stalemate has to be a draw for consistency reasons. If stalemate was a way to win the game, then insufficient mating material would not longer be insufficient, so checkmate would not even have to be possible. Even if you say "checkmate has to be possible otherwise the stalemated player doesn't have to move since it's already a draw"...what about this:

Now a player could force stalemate, despite not being able to force checkmate, and then say "oh i was trying to checkmate him when accidentally stalemating him so i should win", a contradiction, In other words, stalemate would be a win in some cases, and remain draw in others, which makes absolutely no sense.