Why is every non-checkmate a 0.5-0.5 draw?

It doesn't make sense. If the king is not in check, or attacked, then he is in no danger of being killed. I also dont understand how the king being in stalemate is "killed". If there is no check, there is no kill. I suppose there is some sort of analogy involving a king in a fortress surrounded by enemy soldiers or something. All of them holding a bow and arrow or cannon or something, but never firing. If they dont shoot, the king is not killed. Even though draws, or stalemate, are boring I like them because it shows just how difficult it is to accomplish the goal of the game, which is to capture the enemy king. Not stymie him, not hold him motionless, but capture him.

The chess king is not Lasker; it is fischer

The current system is absolutely perfect. Changes could mean the entire game of chess being revisited. Everything will take a turn, and chess will become a new game to a large extent.

The only change I MIGHT think about is Stalemate 0.75-0.25.

It certainly is true that Chess is already working fine as a game for people to play.

The problem is that Chess is not as exciting as a spectator sport as it was in the days of Labourdonnais, Anderssen, or Kieseritzky. So there is not as much money coming in to sponsor tournaments.

So, assuming we want the world's GMs to be able to afford to keep up on the openings by buying books and studying them without having to hold down a day job, we must get people interested in chess as spectators too.

A World Championship match with a record nine draws in a row doesn't help this.

In order to checkmate the opponent, each player strives for material superiority and positional superiority over the chess board. This is known.

By allowing partial credit - and, as I advocate, very small partial credit - for "victories" other than checkmate, in situations where the players are so evenly matched that neither player achieves sufficient advantage for checkmate, a decisive result is achieved. By making each partial result much less rewarding than the one preceeding, I do not believe the struggle in chess, the need to avoid blunders, is in any way vitiated.

One of the things that makes chess so amazing, so enduring, and so popular is that we aren't dicking around with the rules every other day like other games. Chess is consistent, and what you learn today will be applicable tomorrow, or 100 years from now. And it is both simple and profound. You can teach a child everything they need to play for a lifetime, or it can be something a player devotes a lifetime too. Adding in 5,838 new scoring variations, rules, ifs ands and buts, and all that to it is far from necessary, and adds a massive arbitrary component to what is nearly a perfect game. 

Having a World Championship potentially decided because one player delivered stalemate in one game is worse than having it decided by an Armageddon game.  It certainly wouldn't bring audiences flocking to watch,

I don't agree with that. You think of stalemate as a dull event, only worth a draw, because that's what you're used to.

A player must move each turn, and the King can't move into check, because it would be captured next turn. So, logically, stalemate should mean the King was captured and the game lost - the rule excluding stalemate is an arbitrary addition to the simplest form of the game.

An Armageddon game means very short time controls, and so the players are being judged on their blitz skills, a different set of skills than are used for chess under normal time controls.

Achieving stalemate under normal time controls, though, is a result achieved when checkmate can't be achieved by the same means: obtaining positional and material advantage through play.

So I think a change like the one I propose, even if that of the original poster is too radical, would be acceptable to people who are not already chess players.

I think your proposal would make chess unfair.

What if White sacrificed a bishop to put Black's king in trouble, then Black did perpetual check on White later in the game? Black gets more points just because he is up a bishop? What about Black's king being in danger?

Changing the nature of how stalemate is evaluated has a fundamental effect on endgame theory that can have far-reaching effects.  Blitz chess is the same game but faster.  It's not a coincidence that most of the best Blitz players in the world are also the best Classical players.  Obviously there is some variation and some exceptions, but far less than people like to make out.

If the King had to be actually captured and if people were allowed to move into check then numerous things would change.  Castling through check would be valid too.

If stalemate had never existed then sure people might think it is acceptable for someone to just move their pieces around until their opponent's only move is to move into check, but since it has existed for a long time it is the status quo and needs a very good reason to get rid of it.  Given the current rules of chess I still argue that the vast majority of stalemates are arrived at through incompetence.

Oh, no. Castling through check would lose the game, because the King would be captured en passant on the next move.

It is true that stalemate would normally be the result of a blunder while attempting to checkmate under the current rules. But if stalemate were a valid win for fewer points, then stalemate would be directly attempted in cases where checkmate is not achievable: i.e., two Knights against King.

Oh and wouldn't that be just what we need.  People playing out stupid endings looking for stalemate!

And playing out even stupider endings looking for perpetual check.

I think it is just what is needed, because unlike Armageddon or blitz, it calls on the same abilities as regular chess play. It would enrich, rather than impoverish, the art and science of chess, while addressing an issue in the sport of chess.

What about who offers the draw, shouldn't that make a difference?  As it is the custom is that the person who is better offers the draw, which seems rather strange to me.

Blitz chess calls on exactly the same abilities as regular chess because it is chess.

hi

It emphasizes more the ability to think fast, doesn't it?

No, it emphasises the ability to play chess fast.  Something which is very strongly aligned with an ability to play chess at any speed.

It's not an ideal way to decide a classical World Champion, but I still prefer it to 'Oh, you stalemated him in game 7 so you are world Champion.  Well done'.

Yes, IMHO the value of pieces at varying stages of the game is different.

An argument can be made that, when the board is more open - near the end of a game, TWO Bishops are more valuable than a ONE Bishop and ONE Knight.  Or that Knights in general are more valuable than Bishops in the beginning, when the board is more busy, and "jumping" over (opponents and your own) pieces is a greater asset.

I've read that the rules of chess have indeed changed over the centuries.  The Queen used to be the Field Marshall and was restricted to the same one-square movement as a King ?  And en passant capture along with the two-square first move for pawns was also not in the original rules ? 

Great discussion you started, David.  Alas, challenging ANY status quo has historically been given short shrift and dismissed as heretical.  I plan to broach the subject with my monthly chess group.  [ We play "amateur" OTB chess (neither clocks nor the touch rule) in a local library and are sometimes forced to end games prematurely. ]  While your idea may bring to mind tilting at windmills, nevertheless, I wish you Godspeed on your quest.

I think making a stalemate worth more than a draw but less than a win makes total sense.  It adds a new level of complexity to endgame theory while retaining the stalemate concept for the diehard purists.  Personally, I'd like the split to be .7 for the player giving stalemate, .3 for the stalemated player, the thinking being that win + draw should be worth more than two stalemates.  However, I won't quibble with those who prefer a .8/.2 split. 

As for 3-fold repetitions, the 50 Move Rule, and situations where a player is up material but can't give checkmate or stalemate, I'd leave the split at .5/.5.  These situations feel more like draws, i.e. neither player is effectively running out of moves.

Finally, the stalemate rule change WOULD have a significant impact on reducing draws.  Many endgames (K+P vs K, for example) are drawn because of stalemate.  Score those games as something other than .5 for each player, and you'll see the draw percentages that are slowly killing top level chess drop substantially.